twin psychics

[findingblanks]

Yes, TF, I did say direclty that "Steiner made mistakes" and, yes, I did claim that he was wrong that red is what causes a bull to go wild. I directly gave other direct examples. In short sentences. Some of the resposnes where that I am deceptive and guided by evil beings.

Yes, P.M., I did state in short sentences that I thought Bernardo is making a logical error when he states that onotological materialism is the cause (or primary cause) of the rapacious greed that is destroying the earth. In short sentence I said this and, yes, I quoted him and said which videos I saw them in.

Yes, quoted Barfield from HGH and specified why I found it inspiring. In short sentences.

And, yes, you can notice the exact moments in a thread when my comments are responded to with commentaries on my secret hidden motives. You can also try to show me a conversation in which I began by approaching the stranger on this forum by talking about his or her secret motives or chastised them in some way not related to their comments.

And, finally, yes, you can find short sentences where I acknowledge I make all kinds of mistakes, including the ones pointed out by others on this thread.

Oh, I just got an idea.

[Soul_of_Shu]

And, yes, to those who were wondering. I can reach a point where I feel a person's antipathy is so entrenched that I can't find any value in trying to keep a conversation going. You've seen that with some of the folks here. But I like Soul, probably for several reasons. I think it is a respect for how well he manages this site mixed with how thoughtful he is in most of the conversations, along with the fact that he offers really interesting content of his own. That he has this reactivity to me sort of hurts my feelings and annoys but, more than that, feels like an opportunity to hang in and explore the undercurrents without letting go of the surface content. That said, one of my hunches is that he might be reaching a 'tapping out' point with me here. That'll be too bad, but understandable.

To be clear, at no point have I felt that you were lying. I've no reason to doubt the story about the psychic twins, and perhaps you feel bound to protect their anonymity, in which case fair enough, even as you mention that they're already well known enough that there's a decent chance some of us know who they are. Going by a quick google search, by far the results favour a couple of gals in LA, clearly not the low profile type, whose anonymity has been lost for quite some time, so I guess it's not them. As for the privacy over your choice of reading material you recommend to some here, let's go with it's none of our business what you don't want to discuss in a discussion forum

And as for practicing your psychoanalytical 'shadow dancing' tactics here, not that we don't all have shadow work to delve into, perhaps best you do that in your clinical practice, if you have one, with folks who seek you out for that reason, and focus on discussing metaphysics here.

[AshvinP]

Yes, TF, I did say direclty that "Steiner made mistakes" and, yes, I did claim that he was wrong that red is what causes a bull to go wild. I directly gave other direct examples. In short sentences. Some of the resposnes where that I am deceptive and guided by evil beings.

Yes, P.M., I did state in short sentences that I thought Bernardo is making a logical error when he states that onotological materialism is the cause (or primary cause) of the rapacious greed that is destroying the earth. In short sentence I said this and, yes, I quoted him and said which videos I saw them in.

Yes, quoted Barfield from HGH and specified why I found it inspiring. In short sentences.

And, yes, you can notice the exact moments in a thread when my comments are responded to with commentaries on my secret hidden motives. You can also try to show me a conversation in which I began by approaching the stranger on this forum by talking about his or her secret motives or chastised them in some way not related to their comments.

And, finally, yes, you can find short sentences where I acknowledge I make all kinds of mistakes, including the ones pointed out by others on this thread.

Oh, I just got an idea.

I am not sure what "TF" and "PM" refer to here. Specifically you claimed Steiner lapses into "subtle dualisms". That is what I am especially curious about, because many of my essays here focus on how so many modern idealist philosopher subtly (or overtly) lapse into dualism, and Steiner happens to be one of the few who does not according to all of my readings of him so far. Based on your overall sentiment, I suppose you think lapsing into dualism or materialism is no big deal, but obviously quite a few people on this forum (including me) think its a big deal (actually that is the reason this forum exists), that it influences all subsequent reasoning by those who consciously or subconsciously hold to it, and that it has subconsciously permeated the broader non-academic population and modern culture across the board, secular and religious, to the extent that it has had and will continue to have major nihilistic consequences.

As for Barfield, I have tried to show you why his view of spiritual evolution is the exact same as Steiner's, complete with real spiritual heirarchies whose activities we can perceive in systematic detail via higher cognition. I suppose you were either unaware of this aspect of Barfield or disagree with him like you disagree with Steiner, but you never make any of that clear. And as for BK, for the reasons mentioned above, I don't think he is making any logical error when connecting ontology to devastating consequences for the Earth and humanity in all spheres of life. IMO the real cause of the ontologies is an underlying and evolving spiritual reality, but that doesn't lessen the impact of the ontologies which we can now discern in detail and choose to align with or not. Like I said before, there is no reason to assume "ontology" or "philosophy" is synonymos with "abstract intellect set of concepts", rather than a living complex of mental habits which subconsciously influences all of our desires, feelings, and thoughts, by taking possession (in Jungian sense) of our intellect.

[ParadoxZone]

Hi FB,

Before the dancing/not dancing ends, if it is to end, you might consider providing clarification on one point which both fascinates and intrigues me.

Your post above gives me the impression that you are fully aware or believe you are fully aware of the distinction between those occasions when you are dancing and you are not.

There's one thing about the post, in particular, which makes me very sceptical about your own awareness. I'm being deliberately cryptic here, but can point to the example if you wish and you can point out why my impression is erroneous, if it is.

However, a general answer would clear it all up too.

I'll give another example in an effort to be as clear as I can be. In a dialogue on YouTube, possibly a couple of months ago, Bernardo referenced that sometimes he sees/notices that nothing is going on but having seen/noticed that, it's then not true anymore. I was puzzled and intrigued by this. (I won't easily be able to provide a link though I am confident the way I've described it is an accurate enough description).

So my question is when does the thought that "nothing is going on" enter the proceedings and what effect does this have in making sense of the whole experience?

In terms of the question I'm posing to you - how the thought "I'm shadow dancing now" or "I'm not shadow dancing now" effect the degree to which you are indeed dancing or not.

My impression is that it must be very confounding. If that's your response, ok, we can leave it at that.

I've tried to be as clear as I can be in posing the question. In particular the words "intrigued", "fascinating" and "impression" are about as accurate as I can be.

And this isn't an urgent request. I don't want to play, though might to some extent, if you do.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I am not sure what "TF" and "PM" refer to here.

I'm guessing an abbreviation of 'WTF' and 'Prime Minister'

[findingblanks]

Hi Paradox,

I'll go through your comments in steps. You started with:

"Before the dancing/not dancing ends, if it is to end, you might consider providing clarification on one point which both fascinates and intrigues me. Your post above gives me the impression that you are fully aware or believe you are fully aware of the distinction between those occasions when you are dancing and you are not."

Oh, God no! One of the reasons I talk about our 'blind-spots' is because I know they are fully active AND not seen to various degrees. So I am 100% certain that my blind-spots are contributing to nearly everything i say and do. My 'shadow dance' is an attempt to keep conversations going even when somebody comes at me with negativity. You sort of have to go back to the start of each conversation and see when an individual brings something more than just an 'on-the-porch' friendliness, the kind of conversational disposition that that is grounded in charity and good faith even if it becomes intellectually and somewhat personally contentious. I have nothing against people having strong pushback. But if you offer an idea about a novel and then the person in the group begins responding to you with comments about your integrity or beings not just asking for clairty but making grand statements about your inabilities, at some point you mostly bow out. That is very mature. And in most cases that is what I do. But I've found that in online communities that I appreciate for various reasons, I don't always bow out when somebody begins to speak in those ways. I try to slightly exaggerate and then continue to bring good will to the person. I hope we don't find many instances at all of my joining their genealized claims about lacks and suspicions of ill-will or mal-intent. But to get back to your first comment, no, I do not believe at all I am free from major blind spots.

I haven't read your next comments, but my hunch is that you are somebody capable of calling attention to my blind-spots in relation to shadow-dancing that won't require much of a dance. So far your tone is inviting, strong, and clear and I think perhaps we would more likely not shift down into making claims about each other's 'real' personalities and such. Maybe not! I'll go on to your next points.

"There's one thing about the post, in particular, which makes me very sceptical about your own awareness. I'm being deliberately cryptic here, but can point to the example if you wish and you can point out why my impression is erroneous, if it is."



I'll wait and see if your next comments can take care of the general question, but I'm fine if you share it publicly or if you privately message me.

"I'll give another example in an effort to be as clear as I can be. In a dialogue on YouTube, possibly a couple of months ago, Bernardo referenced that sometimes he sees/notices that nothing is going on but having seen/noticed that, it's then not true anymore. I was puzzled and intrigued by this. (I won't easily be able to provide a link though I am confident the way I've described it is an accurate enough description)."

First my meta comment: If my response to your very interesting comment wasn't to take it within context of charity and curiousity, but, instead, I came to you with comments about your tendency to not give links or to make cryptic statements about what Bernardo says, you may try for a bit to respond friendly and rationally to my concerns. You might even empathize with how that can be frustrating. At some point, if it was clear I only had this one frame within which I see your comments, you'd either bow out or, if me, take my hand in dance. But that would require that you not only join my shadow dancefloor, but still actively work to hold a positive will towards me. It's a challenge. For me it is. End of meta-comment.

I think I know the fascinating part of the Bernardo conversation you mention. I think I've heard him make that point at least two times in the last six months. In one case, he was talking about the way the deepest experiences are untrue once we pin them into language. It reminds me of Lao Tzu's “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.” or “The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name.”

"So my question is when does the thought that "nothing is going on" enter the proceedings and what effect does this have in making sense of the whole experience?"

and then:

"In terms of the question I'm posing to you - how the thought "I'm shadow dancing now" or "I'm not shadow dancing now" effect the degree to which you are indeed dancing or not."

This the kind of question that I live for! Thank you.

Obviously, this kind of question doesn't have 'an' answer but it certainly evokes a rich inner environment of responses and more questions. Let me see where it takes me right now....

Okay, so you have clearly set up template for us to work with. There is the so-called 'fact' of 'shadow dancing' and then there is the actual activity itself .Or, rather, more specifically, there is the actual unreflected act and then the act that is being affected by my 'naming' it in the moment of doing it. Does that accurately capture our starting point? I'll go foreword as if it does, but I won't say too much in case you need to modify this ground-floor spot we are on.

Okay, so since "Shadow Dancing" is just a label that points towards a certain blend of inner states, intentions, and understandings, I can say that for me it isn't a technical term. I just mean that I'd contrast 'shadow dancing' with a label that points to an exact set of behaviors or an exact set of beliefs.

And one of the core parts of "Shadow Dancing" for me is the way it has a bit of grace around the fact that I have a shadow and that my online friends and acquaintances do as well. So when I suddenly have a conscious thought that I am now acting within the 'shadow 'dancing' frame it carries forward this slew of intensions and states. But, like Bernardo, I'd say that I experience a wide range of what happens when this process is at play. At it's best (and I don't just mean at 'my' best; I mean that the process is an interplay between a flowing forth from me and from my conversatoinal partner), something very special can happen. It's never a guarantee but it's very special when it does happen. At its worst, I am overly conscious and too much of my own shadow is preventing me from an artful approach. This would be somewhat like what Bernardo and others are talking about how naming the truth kills it.

But reality isn't binary for me here, so I experience not only a very wide range of this art/death experience, but that range is showing up, sometimes, within a single post. There perfectionist in me says I need to go back and only post it after i have taken out all of my shadow. But in most cases I allow my shadow to be in there as it should be. I never want to shame or slander another person so in cases where I feel my words or expressions might evoke shame or are publicly slandering another, I certainly take them out. But I rely on others feedback for that. so far even those who are most convinced I am evil and not interested in real dialog haven't communicated to me that I'm actually hurting their feelings or that I'm producing a false public narrative about them. That matters to me more than having a 'shadow dance' or even having the kind of substantial conversation I lead with.

"And this isn't an urgent request. I don't want to play, though might to some extent, if you do."

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'play' in this context, but this kind of conversational back-and-forth is very valuable to me and I enjoy it. So thank you.

[findingblanks]

Soul you said:

"As for the privacy over your choice of reading material you recommend to some here..."

Again, I simply don't know which comment of mine this refers to here. If I recommended a book, oh! I think you might be referring to my book recommendation to Monkey! I'm more than happy to DM you the title if you are interested. It's a phenomenal book. If you would like me to find an appropriate way to talk publicly about why I'm not sharing the title publicly, I'd be game for that too. Am I correct in my assumption that it is that book, my reference to it, that you are referring to? I have a bad memory, but that is the only time I remembering intentionally and obviously mentioning a specific document but refraining from naming it.

"And as for practicing your psychoanalytical 'shadow dancing' tactics here, not that we don't all have shadow work to delve into, perhaps best you do that in your clinical practice, if you have one, with folks who seek you out for that reason, and focus on discussing metaphysics here."

I just disagree with your premise here. What I'm calling 'shadow dancing' is very similar to what people do naturally in these threads. I simply name that I think the person is coming at me suddenly with more shadow (making my original comments and our original conversation cloudy and harder to get back to), that I understand that is natural, and that I can slightly exaggerate the tone they are taking and include it with an attempt to get back to what seemed most interesting about the original content.

You may think this is a clinical practice, but it has nearly nothing to do with what happens in a therapy room between me and a client. I doubt you want to have that conversation, but I just wanted to say why I don't share your sense that my conversations with those who suddenly teach me what is wrong with me need to take place in an office building. But, outside of that disagreement, I appreciate that a tiny part of your suggestion might reflect that you personally have no need or interest in how I speak in the 'shadow dance' context.

I must admit that it does make me feel good that, from everything I've seen about our past interactions (especially before my teachers came and began to educate us as to what is wrong with me), you have enjoyed my style of conversation and the topics we've shared an interest in. And as we can see, when I approach you with regards to your small 'jabs', I don't belabor it and I almost always (I hope) go back to the meat of the issue. Not always. Per the other conversation, even my shadow has shadows! Actually, Jung would say that's the light Per usual, much appreciated and thanks.

[ParadoxZone]

Hi again FB,

Thanks for the comprehensive response. I enjoyed the meta descriptions very much. And I don't at all need to refer to the specific example. Your response covers it.

An illustration of why I believe I get it is as follows. When I was typing the part about not easily being in a position to access a link, I was conscious that this could be used as evidence from both sides of what has become contentious around here, and decided to plough on anyway.

As for Bernardo's comment and truth in general - this could really be the conversation stopper - even believing "seeing" IS the truth is problematic, regardless of when the thinking occurs (before as in already-formed bias, or afterwards as an interpretation). I'm ruling out "during" and I think that's justified. It's always important, but seems crucial to me when the "thing" been "seen" is labelled as nothingness or "nothing is happening".

So I'm not asking for much - just the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! And yes, I take the point that expressing the actual, factual whole truth to another is fraught because of various shadows influences.

There's anothe Lao Tzu quite as well, along the lines of not making the mistake of believing there was no underlying truth, but I parted company with the translation I was working from a long time ago and never could access it again, despite trying to locate a version many times - I can't remember whose translation/ interpretation it was.

That's the sense in which I referred to not wanting to play. I hope that's apparent to you. And no, I have no belief that I'm dealing with someone "evil" and I trust that's apparent too.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I just disagree with your premise here. What I'm calling 'shadow dancing' is very similar to what people do naturally in these threads.

Now for some shadow dancing: You think I'm lying. Fair! I think you are triggered by your own annoyances at me for the long thread. I don't know why or the details but I can only imagine good reasons why I may have annoyed you there a tiny tiny bit, enough for you to slowly build a growing snowball of frustration towards me. End of shadow dance.

In that comment you've pretty much conjured up the stuff of fiction. I for one don't naturally have such imaginings that others here are thinking/implying I'm a liar, and that that indicates their shadow is triggered. Again, at no point have I felt you are lying. TF and PM maybe, but not you

[findingblanks]

Paradox,

That was great. Thanks.

"As for Bernardo's comment and truth in general - this could really be the conversation stopper - even believing "seeing" IS the truth is problematic, regardless of when the thinking occurs (before as in already-formed bias, or afterwards as an interpretation). I'm ruling out "during" and I think that's justified. It's always important, but seems crucial to me when the "thing" been "seen" is labelled as nothingness or "nothing is happening"

If you have time, I want to ask about what you wrote there. If not, I understand .Thanks again!