The Believing Brain and C's clues...

[Phill4]

Why did sedenion stop posting? Did he get banned?

Also Joe posted this on the confidence thread:

Certain members' posts are moderated for good reasons. It's not about fear, it's about moderators being responsible moderators. Many other forums have similar procedures, again for good reasons.

What are these reasons, or what would one of these reasons be?

I think the moderators did well by protecting this space (forum) so it can be a safe place where everyone can exchange ideas and learn without constant instigation of arguments on semantics and impossible demand.

You need to pay close attention at the things he say and the contrations,the points at which he used the arguments to figure this one out, the ideas he picked, the emotions he was looking for.

He said it, people have their own biases which creates a certain patters of behaviors, and that this is one of the reasons we (according to him) assume that everyone is broken and everything else,

He just didn't have the ability to see this in himself more than his ego allowed.


Many if not most of his assumptions were wrong not because he lacks intellect, but because he can't deal with his own feelings in a healthy manner.
He felt bothered that we offered book TO THE POINT that almost 100 posts were dedicated to look for a reason to vent and prove his abilities to argue and to CHOSE to see us in a certain way which was inacurate.


I don't think it ever was about he looking for the truth, but how he feels..

He also made statements about us, our motives and himself that were not accurate, using argumentative maneuvers to support a weak point, as i pointed out to him.
People can call themselves unchangable, unique, self-aware or whatever and state it will all comviction but does saying it 100 times make it true? No necesarily. It infact becomes a self-deception for that matter.


The problem, was not that he had programs or issues or whatever, (We all do) the problem is that he wanted to argue, his dopa ime receptors got triggered that way, he was purposfuly , consciously intigating arguments and closing his ears to whatever people said sometimes. His erratic behavior which semmed to be out of his own control became a draing element for others and himself. Missused the forum here.

The requirements to be in the forums is NOT that you are a perfect, cuadricular minded, robotic thinking Never failing being of light, some inner interest does it, some respect and consideration does it, basic rules he rejected from the getgo, as he stated.
And in this point of crteous behavior he also perceived it as social norms he can chose follow to keep society happy by contrdicting his feelings. While this is an important clue, i will just say that,
Istead of having courtesy with others because they are people, he saw it as courtesy with other because society is focing constructs and rules uppon him, (See the difference?)

 

[Divide by Zero]

The book Political Ponerology explains how sometimes a pathological being (or in our society- societally induced narcissism) can be like a virus and infect others.

The mods sensed a pattern and gave this person a chance to explain his position.
It wasn't assumed that he was a problem, until he was given a chance to interact- using moderation to prevent half truths and subtle manipulation.

But, now we see it was that he didn't change, he just changed his game.
His beliefs were not congruent with ours!

 

[Archaea]

Archaea, I'm not sure of the reasons now but I do recall some lurkers joining and causing issues.
Some were from the Vinny Bridges camp IIRC, trying to make the work look useless- as in their own black magic narcissism, they felt they figured it out, haha.

Since we're all working on our own issues, there have been times when certain pathological personalities come in and cause a ruckus when it comes to learning.

Yeah, I imagine running a forum like this would have it's share of pathological personalities, but I'm not sure Sedenion was one of them, I think he got caught up in a reaction cycle and then got banned for continuing to react and feeding the cycle energy, which I feel isn't a good reason for getting banned.

The traits of confident people thread has been helpful in helping me see something in dealing with such people. We're afraid to talk behind their backs as Laura has discovered as a program of "no rumors" despite them spreading rumors! We're afraid to be upfront about our own expectations and needs. We're afraid to be critical, because they cry like butterflies or pass the blame.

IKR, these people ruin everything! argh...

But I think they're only part of the control system at work here, I suspect that that there are OP's who instinctively prefer a dull FRV and they can have pretty convincing ideas, even if those ideas don't make sense on closer inspection. So whenever there's a disruption to the FRV level, it gets pulled back to a "comfortable" level.

Gurdjieff talked about how a person can start out with an aim, but if they don't understand the law of octaves and the law of intervals (yes, cryptic), then they'll end up going in the completely opposite direction eventually, if they don't use shocks and efforts at the right opportunities. At best, they will just come full circle back to where they began.

The only stuff I've read regarding Gurdjieff is stuff I've read here on the Cass site. But recently I read something somewhere that made me think that shocks don't have to be a bad thing from the perspective of the recipient. For example, if someone (like myself :)) were taking the dogs for a walk and was happily daydreaming about blowing away Chinese invaders, and one of the dogs started barking at something, that would mean that the person would have to stop daydreaming and pay attention to what was happening in reality. So a shock doesn't necessarily have to be a slap in the face. That's my thinking on the matter ATM.

If the above is correct then perhaps Sedenion could maybe be thought of as a shock to the forum.

If you're in a library, there are rules to follow. The people who go to the library are there to study in an atmosphere of peace and quiet. If a drunkard stumbles in, whiskey bottle in hand, looking for a good time and to act the fool and make people laugh, then the owners of the library have a right to maintain the peace and order of the environment to the benefit of those who are there to use the library in the way it was intended.

If you have a vision for your garden, you have to constantly be aware and awake to any little shoots that spring up through the soil of plants, trees, weeds, flowers that aren't where you want them and will upset the harmony. You nip them in the bud or pull them out from the roots, and you do this constantly, otherwise, if you just left it through some notion of all plants having the right to grow anywhere, your garden will turn into a jungle.

I agree that a library is an inappropriate place to shock people back to reality. ;)

My understanding ATM is that the purpose of the forum is objectivity, becoming STO, and figuring out WTH the C's are talking about. I may need to be corrected about the official purpose, but that's why I'm here. But if that's the case, is what Sedenion said contrary to the goals of the forum? He said he was interested in new ideas, does it matter that he didn't want to read books?

I get that it can be time consuming explaining the same ideas to newbies over and over, but no one is forced to make a post if they don't want to, plenty of posts go unanswered here. However, there are enough members on the forum now that the older newbies can have an opportunity to get some STO points explaining things again to the newer newbies, even if the answer is just: "The answers you're looking for are here, you can read it if you like, I don't care."

Why did sedenion stop posting? Did he get banned?

He did.

I think this is a bit like curing a sore thumb by cutting it off. Like I said above I think the problem was a reaction cycle, Sedenion would say something and then everybody would say something else and so on and on. It would have stopped eventually, but it can't be just on Sedenion to know what's happening and stop it. If the mods didn't like what was happening they could have stopped feeding the cycle energy themselves, I think.

Also, I think that what happens to one member on the forum affects all members on the forum. So if people think they can get banned when they don't understand what's happening the average neuroticism level shoots way up.

Also I don't know whether or not you've thought of this so I'll just say it. When the C's say that help is on the way they could be referring to people who'll soon come along to help the Cass cause. This would explain why they don't say it every session, because helps on the way and then it arrives shortly after. If true then the past two messages could have partly referred to Sedenion, I think it fits.

I think the moderators did well by protecting this space (forum) so it can be a safe place where everyone can exchange ideas and learn without constant instigation of arguments on semantics and impossible demand.

You need to pay close attention at the things he say and the contrations,the points at which he used the arguments to figure this one out, the ideas he picked, the emotions he was looking for.

He said it, people have their own biases which creates a certain patters of behaviors, and that this is one of the reasons we (according to him) assume that everyone is broken and everything else,

He just didn't have the ability to see this in himself more than his ego allowed.

I'm willing to accept this, but I didn't see it that way. He may have had problems. To say something like we can help you if you do what we say otherwise you're a disruption is just classic dull FRV thinking, it's not STO IMO. I could be wrong about Sedenion though, I'm open to that, but I liked him, he had a sense of humor and a working brain.

Many if not most of his assumptions were wrong not because he lacks intellect, but because he can't deal with his own feelings in a healthy manner.
He felt bothered that we offered book TO THE POINT that almost 100 posts were dedicated to look for a reason to vent and prove his abilities to argue and to CHOSE to see us in a certain way which was inacurate.


I don't think it ever was about he looking for the truth, but how he feels..

He did have a negative predisposition, but I got the feeling he chose that disposition because he liked it. I think we need to allow others to believe what they choose to believe, this is part of respecting other's free will. I think the situation was an opportunity to polarize towards STO, I don't think if an STO approach were consciously taken that Sedenion would have actively sought ways of being disruptive.

If emotions are objective then expressing how we feel is looking for the truth, right?

The problem, was not that he had programs or issues or whatever, (We all do) the problem is that he wanted to argue, his dopa ime receptors got triggered that way, he was purposfuly , consciously intigating arguments and closing his ears to whatever people said sometimes. His erratic behavior which semmed to be out of his own control became a draing element for others and himself. Missused the forum here.

I agree with this, he could have slowed right down and the reaction cycle would have run out of energy. But I also think the other members involved could have done the same thing. I don't think Sedenion's dopamine receptors were the only one's firing.

The requirements to be in the forums is NOT that you are a perfect, cuadricular minded, robotic thinking Never failing being of light, some inner interest does it, some respect and consideration does it, basic rules he rejected from the getgo, as he stated.
And in this point of crteous behavior he also perceived it as social norms he can chose follow to keep society happy by contrdicting his feelings. While this is an important clue, i will just say that,
Istead of having courtesy with others because they are people, he saw it as courtesy with other because society is focing constructs and rules uppon him, (See the difference?)

Yeah, he may have been a bit confused, possibly.

The mods sensed a pattern and gave this person a chance to explain his position.
It wasn't assumed that he was a problem, until he was given a chance to interact- using moderation to prevent half truths and subtle manipulation.

But, now we see it was that he didn't change, he just changed his game.
His beliefs were not congruent with ours!

But it's okay for others to have beliefs that aren't congruent with ours. In fact I think it's possible that his beliefs were congruent with ours more often than not, he just wasn't around long enough.

 

[Divide by Zero]

IKR, these people ruin everything! argh...

But I think they're only part of the control system at work here, I suspect that that there are OP's who instinctively prefer a dull FRV and they can have pretty convincing ideas, even if those ideas don't make sense on closer inspection. So whenever there's a disruption to the FRV level, it gets pulled back to a "comfortable" level.

Some of us didn't see any sense in his ideas but I figured it was translation issues.
FRV to me seems like a consistency in character and communication. For example, we can disagree and agree- try to find the truth. Some people come knowing the answers and peek.

My understanding ATM is that the purpose of the forum is objectivity, becoming STO, and figuring out WTH the C's are talking about. I may need to be corrected about the official purpose, but that's why I'm here. But if that's the case, is what Sedenion said contrary to the goals of the forum? He said he was interested in new ideas, does it matter that he didn't want to read books?

I get that it can be time consuming explaining the same ideas to newbies over and over, but no one is forced to make a post if they don't want to, plenty of posts go unanswered here. However, there are enough members on the forum now that the older newbies can have an opportunity to get some STO points explaining things again to the newer newbies, even if the answer is just: "The answers you're looking for are here, you can read it if you like, I don't care."

Links and ideas were pointed out, he's the one that poo poohed books. There's always misunderstandings, that's a given- but we were automatically wrong if it didn't fit his "belief" (great thread to bring it up here ;) )
Theres no STO points, he wasn't asking. In the other thread you see people question his ideas and he just says that's "the way it is". For someone who is quite open, he was quite convinced he knew the best way.
He made it clear that our way was wrong or lacking. When questioned what he knows, he gave cryptic garbage. That's my red flag, when someone "KNOWS" they know, but can't put it into words. In ponerology, they call that the Schizoidal type which is convinced they know best. Not exactly evil, but still disconnected from reality.

What if his best way is exactly that, the best way to avoid facing the pain by being right, AKA narcissism (and yes we all have some of that wounding to some extent)
Joe said on a sott radio show- in a more extreme example, that for some people the truth HURTS THEIR BRAIN!
Why you think he was so adamant against judging, which is another half truth- it's not judgement but analysis.

When my girlfriend and I had issues and I saw that she was getting drained at work- for her to face the fact that she is overdoing for people that could care less (as raised the "adult child" in her family) she started to say I was the judgemental one. Never mind that those people were quick to put her down when she didn't do a favor, after she spoiled them with things they never originally asked for LOL
But sheesh, I was trying to help because yes- it's draining ME in return and you will not change if you keep putting yourself in that frame of mind.

That's the main problem, more than aliens, more than the economy IMHO- this crappy brain of ours which gets lost in it's suffering and dreams which are not always based on reality.
God forbid the person that says "hey that's not reasonable". They get labeled by the person that says they don't want to be judged, ironic- labeled!

It's like when G said the alcoholic would blame him for making him drink. Society, chemicals, are designed to make us fight against the very thing that could help us (including our own awareness). Reminds me of the Matrix scene where Morpheus shows Neo that the very minds that could be saved can become agents.

 

[Phill4]

. I get that it can be time consuming explaining the same ideas to newbies over and over, but no one is forced to make a post if they don't want to, plenty of posts go unanswered here. However, there are enough members on the forum now that the older newbies can have an opportunity to get some STO points explaining things again to the newer newbies, even if the answer is just: "The answers you're looking for are here, you can read it if you like, I don't care."

He just deined it, and free will needs to be respected.


He pointed it out, and how can you address a situation such as this one without violating the free will of this person?

Explaining an STO concept may not have been of his liking, we were reaching out but where do you draw the line of going around a person's pshyche so they can get what "I think" is best for them.

He stressed on this point considerably, Yes we would go out of our way to explain what we think or how we see things, but one needs to be careful to to cross the line where he at some level is rejecting it and at some other desperately looking for answers completely unrelated.

This conflict needs to be solved on the mind of the truthseeker, or else these difficulties will keep happening as the internal contradiction is never resolved.

In the realm of the mind, we are not one person, even biologically, the process of thinking and synapses happens in split sections, how can you satisfy so many when the attentive aspect or the I (ego) personality, is acting in opposition?



Take this situation #1: ok, i read the book the wave 1, and i did not understand what STO means, so i come here and ask,
If STO is positive how come we serve the self in this process?

And a member answers:" well, i think i saw somewhere that the reason is because it is a balanced dynamic, where the self is nourished through others"
And expands in this line of questioning.


Take this situation #2: Hey there is alot of refferences on the wave, check chaper so and so, here is a quote.
And the member answers: your biases makes you think as though im broken. Not everyone thinks they are broken, so that is your assumption.


Situation one opens the posibility of interacting and exchanging.
Situation two is an expression of the will, which blocks comunication on the subject at hand

In situation two, what happens is that help on the question is not being asked.


He got banned after he stated that he does not care, and that implies alot if you think about it, mods and many of us actually care,
With this in mind, you can only go by what he said, what can we expect?
And even if we were psychics, and read minds and had the remote capacity to transform his situation by hiving some "light" , STO cannot violate the free will of a person, otherwise people who pray to jesus would get unlimited miraculous checks at every whim to fix their lives.
Choice needs to be his.

 

[Archaea]

Some of us didn't see any sense in his ideas but I figured it was translation issues.
FRV to me seems like a consistency in character and communication. For example, we can disagree and agree- try to find the truth. Some people come knowing the answers and peek.

I agree, FRV I think is related to truth, which ultimately would be consistency with reality, and this increases receivership capability like a radio, which is communication. I didn't think of it like that.

Links and ideas were pointed out, he's the one that poo poohed books. There's always misunderstandings, that's a given- but we were automatically wrong if it didn't fit his "belief" (great thread to bring it up here ;) )
Theres no STO points, he wasn't asking. In the other thread you see people question his ideas and he just says that's "the way it is". For someone who is quite open, he was quite convinced he knew the best way.
He made it clear that our way was wrong or lacking. When questioned what he knows, he gave cryptic garbage. That's my red flag, when someone "KNOWS" they know, but can't put it into words. In ponerology, they call that the Schizoidal type which is convinced they know best. Not exactly evil, but still disconnected from reality.

I see what your saying, so my question is, is this a reason for someone to get banned? I think what you're describing is what was fueling the reaction cycle, If people were to stop questioning his ideas or if he were to stop saying that's "the way it is" or even if the conversation didn't go so quickly so people could have some time to reflect on it between posts then I think the reaction cycle would have stopped.

I choose this thread deliberately to discuss this because I think Sedenion getting banned has to do with the beliefs of the moderators, and I believe they are false beliefs.

I personally didn't think what Sedenion was saying cryptic, except for the projection matrix bit. In fact I think what he was saying is related to this thread, he was saying that he didn't want to believe that there was anything wrong with himself because the mind is so responsive that if he believes that there is something wrong then there will be something wrong. This is his choice and I respect it, even though ultimately I think he can't escape the deep set beliefs he holds in his sub-conscious that there is something wrong with him without working on himself.

What if his best way is exactly that, the best way to avoid facing the pain by being right, AKA narcissism (and yes we all have some of that wounding to some extent)
Joe said on a sott radio show- in a more extreme example, that for some people the truth HURTS THEIR BRAIN!
Why you think he was so adamant against judging, which is another half truth- it's not judgement but analysis.

I think it's best to try to eliminate our tendency to judge others if we want to be STO. Passing judgment in any way is determining the needs of another, even if you don't act on it. Ra, and the C's say all is one and one is all so respecting the choices of the creator is respecting the choices of others. I think the creator needs to experience everything possible because it/I/we/whatever has an eternal life, so we literally have endless "time" which means we need to find endless experiences.

When my girlfriend and I had issues and I saw that she was getting drained at work- for her to face the fact that she is overdoing for people that could care less (as raised the "adult child" in her family) she started to say I was the judgemental one. Never mind that those people were quick to put her down when she didn't do a favor, after she spoiled them with things they never originally asked for LOL
But sheesh, I was trying to help because yes- it's draining ME in return and you will not change if you keep putting yourself in that frame of mind.

I have a problem with not saying no to people. The C's said somewhere that there are people we should just not associate with, so I don't associate with people who just want me to so stuff for them all the time anymore. Might be easier said than done though.

He just deined it, and free will needs to be respected.


He pointed it out, and how can you address a situation such as this one without violating the free will of this person?

Explaining an STO concept may not have been of his liking, we were reaching out but where do you draw the line of going around a person's pshyche so they can get what "I think" is best for them.

He stressed on this point considerably, Yes we would go out of our way to explain what we think or how we see things, but one needs to be careful to to cross the line where he at some level is rejecting it and at some other desperately looking for answers completely unrelated.

This conflict needs to be solved on the mind of the truthseeker, or else these difficulties will keep happening as the internal contradiction is never resolved.

In the realm of the mind, we are not one person, even biologically, the process of thinking and synapses happens in split sections, how can you satisfy so many when the attentive aspect or the I (ego) personality, is acting in opposition?

I agree with this completely, but I still don't think it's a good reaon for being banned.

Take this situation #1: ok, i read the book the wave 1, and i did not understand what STO means, so i come here and ask,
If STO is positive how come we serve the self in this process?

And a member answers:" well, i think i saw somewhere that the reason is because it is a balanced dynamic, where the self is nourished through others"
And expands in this line of questioning.


Take this situation #2: Hey there is alot of refferences on the wave, check chaper so and so, here is a quote.
And the member answers: your biases makes you think as though im broken. Not everyone thinks they are broken, so that is your assumption.


Situation one opens the posibility of interacting and exchanging.
Situation two is an expression of the will, which blocks comunication on the subject at hand

In situation two, what happens is that help on the question is not being asked.

Ok, but is not asking a question a reason for getting banned? Perhaps this is another aspect of the reaction cycle, people were answering their own questions and Sedenion couldn't see it. Or perhaps members of the forum were projecting themselves onto Sedenion and he didn't much like it. Perhaps I'm projecting onto Sedenion and this is why I think he shouldn't have been banned, perhaps we're all projecting onto Sedenion and this is why I disagree with everybody.

So how do we know who's projecting onto Sedenion, if anybody? How do we find the truth? I you want my opinion, which nobody asked for, a good first step is to not ban Sedenion, A good second step is to open the mind, I think, and see what he says.

He got banned after he stated that he does not care, and that implies alot if you think about it, mods and many of us actually care,
With this in mind, you can only go by what he said, what can we expect?
And even if we were psychics, and read minds and had the remote capacity to transform his situation by hiving some "light" , STO cannot violate the free will of a person, otherwise people who pray to jesus would get unlimited miraculous checks at every whim to fix their lives.
Choice needs to be his.

Getting banned is a violation of free will, he can no longer say anything here, which is a denial of expression. I understand that sometimes people come here to be intentionally disruptive, and these people should be banned, but I don't think there's any evidence that Sedenion was one of them.

 

[Alada]

I choose this thread deliberately to discuss this because I think Sedenion getting banned has to do with the beliefs of the moderators, and I believe they are false beliefs.

What false beliefs?!

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.

Sedenion had no aim. Sedenion came only to play and entertain himself at the expense of others who on the whole are not here for that same reason.

Getting banned is a violation of free will, he can no longer say anything here, which is a denial of expression. I understand that sometimes people come here to be intentionally disruptive, and these people should be banned, but I don't think there's any evidence that Sedenion was one of them.

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?

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=Archaea]
So how do we know who's projecting onto Sedenion, if anybody? How do we find the truth? I you want my opinion, which nobody asked for, a good first step is to not ban Sedenion, A good second step is to open the mind, I think, and see what he says.
[/quote]

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.

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.

[quote author=Archaea]
Getting banned is a violation of free will, he can no longer say anything here, which is a denial of expression. I understand that sometimes people come here to be intentionally disruptive, and these people should be banned, but I don't think there's any evidence that Sedenion was one of them.
[/quote]

Sedenion exercised his free will in choosing his way of interaction here. As mentioned eaier, he has had past experience in getting banned from places as a result of his choices. Same thing happened here. No violation of free will as far as I can see.

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?

 

[Divide by Zero]

I think it's best to try to eliminate our tendency to judge others if we want to be STO. Passing judgment in any way is determining the needs of another, even if you don't act on it. Ra, and the C's say all is one and one is all so respecting the choices of the creator is respecting the choices of others. I think the creator needs to experience everything possible because it/I/we/whatever has an eternal life, so we literally have endless "time" which means we need to find endless experiences.

That's a belief, judging is a part of life. As STS beings, if we don't judge and think with a hammer, it would be like a new age dream. What I'm coming at with this thread on belief is that while we think we may not do this or that, we are- deep down. Check this thread too if interested in how our own genes change the way we see : http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,43227.0.html



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.

It might be counterproductive to "think" we can be truly open and objective, when our reality is not.
Maybe the only objective thing is to know that we aren't capable of it. It's like the work and meditation, you find out who you are by first seeing who you are not!

The work seems to say- we aren't perfect, nobody else is. In my own work and personal relationships, I find the most productive and fair thing to acknowledge we all have faults and use that to watch each others back. It's the same here. It seems the past members that caused a lot of trouble were the ones who couldn't take the mirror, because it would destroy their idea that they are perfect. It's better to start from the bottom up, knowing we can and do have faults, some of which got us to this point- by navigating a corrupt society/world!

So being able to judge/asses helps you catch any issues I have. In his case, the way he was stuck on the self-esteem showed a red flag, a "blink" of a personality type that should not be taken seriously as we have seen- he does not us. It's sort of a postmodernism existentialist - "nothing is a big deal" thing he was into. But then, why was it a big deal when our "beliefs" didn't match his "beliefs"? Because he thinks he doesn't have beliefs?

I have a problem with not saying no to people. The C's said somewhere that there are people we should just not associate with, so I don't associate with people who just want me to so stuff for them all the time anymore. Might be easier said than done though.

I had that issue too when a child/teen. It's far from the best way, but one day I "blew up" on friends and family- I got tired of being a doormat. It was like that movie network "I'm Mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

I got tired of feeling guilty all the time. I think we do what we have to do to fit in, at some point we break away and see that, wait a second- I can draw a line to conserve my energy, which will help me do a better job for myself AND others who "give back". I think that's a shadow of STO, a "STO-lite" version in a STS world?

Funny how despite having more self-esteem and setting limits on what I do, I'm able to do more by not wasting it on repeat "takers who are not givers/respecters" LOL!

Getting banned is a violation of free will, he can no longer say anything here, which is a denial of expression. I understand that sometimes people come here to be intentionally disruptive, and these people should be banned, but I don't think there's any evidence that Sedenion was one of them.

Free will always annoyed me. I think the C's got closest to saying to the extent that free will is relative to knowledge, and we also hear about the higher emotional center. I don't see that as something that matches the stereotype of enlightenment. The 4th way is about still interacting with the world, instead of sitting in a cave for decades to find enlightenment.

In this case free will is grey, he has the free will to respect our "house". Our house requires you to take your shoes off, but he thinks not having shoes is weakness. So, we have the free will to say no. As Laura said in the other thread, if you go to a chess club, you don't start talking about Nintendo games, etc. But people revolt against that as it means no free speech. Remember pussy riot did their horrible singing in the Russian Orthodox Church and were put in jail when they refused to leave? Free speech is relative, like this free will thing it seems. It's very disappointing to see that our own minds play games with free will, like in the thread I linked above.

 

[Keit]

Getting banned is a violation of free will, he can no longer say anything here, which is a denial of expression.

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.

But the main point remains, that this forum has a specific aim. It is also a school. And sometimes the best lesson a person can get is by NOT being allowed to participate. Especially if this participation wasn't furthering forum's goals.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Getting banned is a violation of free will, he can no longer say anything here, which is a denial of expression.

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.

But the main point remains, that this forum has a specific aim. It is also a school. And sometimes the best lesson a person can get is by NOT being allowed to participate. Especially if this participation wasn't furthering forum's goals.

Even Peterson was explaining to the pronoun snowflakes that it's his free speech to decide whether to use their pronoun or not. They ranted at him that it's offensive to not use their prounoun. Honestly, the only prounoun I will use is His Apacheness, Atreides, LOL.

Actually banning someone is a form of free speech, like if someone is over my house and I tell them to stop it or leave.

The flavor of his arguments were not congruent with truth seeking, like my passive aggressive foreman. If there are multiple ways of doing something, even if another's idea is better- he should be confident to say he wants it his way. Then I respect that. But no, he does a subtle jab way of putting down that idea to justify his.
Better to be honest about a limitation or bias - than to pretend like you know the right way and dismiss everything. Why? Because if my foreman's way does not work, he will be open to other methods. Instead, when we have a problem, he defends his method even to the point of blaming us or unrelated issues. And that is the problem with his (non) argument of why "we do it wrong"

Instead of knowing where they stand by their own confidence to have a proper debate/conversation, they play a sort of gaslighting to justify their own "betterness".
Where we are open to specific things (for example, I disagree about Trump here- but there is no absolute answer yet), there is no static. The static comes from the covert agression of people who try to "win" by ponerized means. Yes, it's not just psychopathic- it can come from narcissitically wounded people who refuse to (or can't?- splitting?) and then block things en masse.

What I'm getting at here is that the group I see is not about forcing an idea, but wanting someone who really asks, means that person is ready to reconsider what they "believe"- even small things.

Maybe it can show the difference between our own inner "OCD's" and a process of learning. I would only guess that is opening one up to new ways of seeing things, contrary to these automatic "beliefs" that carried us this far to survive physically and socially in this upside down bizarro world.

 

[Phill4]

.I'm willing to accept this, but I didn't see it that way. He may have had problems. To say something like we can help you if you do what we say otherwise you're a disruption is just classic dull FRV thinking, it's not STO IMO. I could be wrong about Sedenion though, I'm open to that, but I liked him, he had a sense of humor and a working brain.

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,

His intellect was not the problem either.

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 tried to explain to him that he was part of the forum, and when he spoke of "this forum" he was including himself, like a perspective to maybe not look at it in such deffinite terms

I was trying to convey to not necessarily throw the baby with the bathwater, and looking for a middle ground, but then he would look for this specific points to argue, when he could have contributed a whole lot more had he chosen to.

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?

Archaea, I believe this point of free will can become an element of confusion, STO and free will a few thoughs on this:

Think when Laura asks or Don asked something that was already answered, 6D say this is already explained, they have the free will to ask the question, but the C's and Ra choose to preserve the energy and it is an action that reminds us that we have the choice to look for ourselves instead of having them giving every answer just because we need proff, think of the transcripts and look for those exchanges,
The energy exchange happening is not like when it was initially asked, because it gives much better results for the questioner the action of personally investigating for the purpose of growth and discovery. To not rely on answers alone but to look and use our energy to find answers to questions on our own.

They suggested networking also because everyone here can excersice this STO aspect where all these ideas come into play at the 3D level for a candidate.
--

The choice is still within his hands and reach and he is smart enough and attested by his evaluation of certain concepts to get the answer he is looking to get according to his personal perspective, if he finds this forum a valuable source he will get something more that what he originally intended
With the only difference that if he truly wants to know he now has to make an extra effort if he wants to learn, this knowledge didn't just appear overnight for me or anyone else or he himself

He was banned from posting, but his connection to the all wasn't shattered, his computer screen wasn't shattered either, , the information is all here whatever he wants to make of it is in his hands.

 

[Divide by Zero]

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,

His intellect was not the problem either.

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 tried to explain to him that he was part of the forum, and when he spoke of "this forum" he was including himself, like a perspective to maybe not look at it in such deffinite terms

I was trying to convey to not necessarily throw the baby with the bathwater, and looking for a middle ground, but then he would look for this specific points to argue, when he could have contributed a whole lot more had he chosen to.

Thats the key word, definites. How can you come here stating you already know and then downplay what we are doing - acting like this forum is for entertainment?
It's like if 'god' came down and pretended to be one of us, just to see "how stupid we are", lol.

Not sure if schizoid is the best term but I did get a bad feeling about him, not because he disagreed, but because the way he was doing it in an indirect way. Narcissitic wounding or worse?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder

Descriptions of the schizoid personality as "hidden" behind an outward appearance of emotional engagement have been recognized since 1940 with Fairbairn's description of "schizoid exhibitionism," in which the schizoid individual is able to express a great deal of feeling and to make what appear to be impressive social contacts yet in reality gives nothing and loses nothing. Because he/she is only "playing a part," his own personality is not involved. According to Fairbairn, the person disowns the part which he is playing and thus the schizoid individual seeks to preserve his own personality intact and immune from compromise."[13] Further references to the secret schizoid come from Masud Khan,[14] Jeffrey Seinfeld[15] and Philip Manfield,[16] who give a description of an SPD individual who actually "enjoys" regular public speaking engagements but experiences great difficulty in the breaks when audience members would attempt to engage him emotionally.[17] These references expose the problems involved in relying singularly on outer observable behavior for assessing the presence of personality disorders in certain individuals.

Interesting how when we tried to dig deeper, he blocked it out, saying we were focusing too much on "him"?
Of course any of us get self conscious, but then the tone changed into a less confrontational and more subtle disagreement framed as "I'm just here for fun". Sure buddy, you go have fun on someone else's dime.
Not only that, when it's focusing on emotion, explained above- as I think I have in the past got frustrated with such individuals who win arguments by saying "why are you emotional". I replied one time, "Why are you so calm/cold in this situation, are YOU ok?

 

[Archaea]

What false beliefs?!

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.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Is being considerate of other people's internal considerations being externally considerate?

Not if your in a place which seeks to learn and grow past that.
He has them, as we all do. But he clearly stated that he prefers to not face them.

I'm still a bit peturbed that he saw this place as entertainment. It's kind of new agey.
I had a friend like that, she would always say everyone's truth is right. But that's not true and will in fact just jumble up a goal, which we share here. The small goals are different but we are working on ourselves towards a common direction or so I hope.

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.

There's a book called Blink by Malcolm Gladwell which explains why sometimes a snap feeling is a lot of times right, a gut instinct.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/feb/06/scienceandnature.society
Laura also wrote about it in the Wave, IIRC? and it's amazing how with practice, our pattern recognition/gut instinct can be right.

Now, do you think there was no way for him to explain? I saw plenty of times when he had a chance to explain his ideas and this is where maybe my blink kicked in-> he was playing around and not showing his cards.
I don't like poker or other gambling, for that exact reason. He could have had nothing to stand on except his own self-importance. Fine, but remember Bluffing often wins games, not good cards. We don't play poker here. I'm sure the other forums that banned him got sick of it too.

Who knows, maybe he had "good cards", but why can he come here- interact one way and not share? That's another possible blink. And don't get me started on people who talk like they got it figured out. It's funny that in my past friends, the few people who do that tended to accuse ME of doing that- as I was expressing questions and doubts. Projection in that manner is a red flag. Turns out that they were sure of their ideas and my doubts made them attack me, much like he was pushing that we do things a wrong way.

As in the Dec 10 thread small discussion on close minded people, we spoke how some people have "software" that is incompatible. Fine, but be ready to share and we all benefit. Don't tell US that we're the only one with the wrong software.

Beyond that not much I can say, maybe it is quite abrupt. But in the past we've had huge headaches from non trolls, but people with issues. Check the baked noodles section, lol. Even veteran members started to play like they know and started to run off in another direction, trying to kick the forum to boost their false egos. It's one thing to express doubt and constructive criticism, like in your post- it's another when they engage in a "personality splitting" and project in order to get their bubble bigger :)