Yeah, just to make some snide remark, yet again intended to provoke antagonism and antipathy. Pre-moderation may again be considered.
A clean room for a specific exploration
-
Soul_of_Shu
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: A clean room for a specific exploration
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Re: A clean room for a specific exploration
I wasn't intending to be snide Shu (and hardly think that such a comment warrants pre-moderation). I genuinely think that Ashvin could learn a lot from FB.Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:14 amYeah, just to make some snide remark, yet again intended to provoke antagonism and antipathy. Pre-moderation may again be considered.
-
Soul_of_Shu
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: A clean room for a specific exploration
And vice versa. And in so doing we are all here quite capable of thinking this through together, above and beyond what has come to pass for thinking in the deprived, out-moded paradigm, which is precisely Ashvin's point.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Re: A clean room for a specific exploration
Amen to that. Chill pills all round.Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:33 amAnd vice versa. And in so doing we are all here quite capable of thinking this through together, above and beyond what has come to pass for thinking in the deprived, out-moded paradigm, which is precisely Ashvin's point.
My previous comment was disparaging , so sorry about that.
-
findingblanks
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am
Re: A clean room for a specific exploration
Ah, look team! Yes, Ashvin decided to not comment on my integrity or engage in a long paragraph of all the other things we must fully understand before we can even begin to talk about if Steiner is correct in claiming white people must achieve their mission in about 1,500 years if non-white people will ever have a chance to integrate with the Christ the way only white people can now. That is a relief.
"1) Are you presuming to know what the "vast majority of people on this list" can find easy to follow before most of them have even read it?"
I think it is technically possible to know for sure, but I haven't done nor do I wish to do any of the things it would take to know for sure if over 51% of the people here would say Cleric isn't very clear to them. However, I could explain why I think it is a reasonable inference to assume that at least 51% of us here might like Cleric but find that we don't think he's very clear or often even correct in his assumptions let alone his conclusions.
Yes, we agree that people can ask questions when they are curious. And if we find that people aren't asking us many questions, we can ask ourselves what can be the various causes of that. I don't assume the answer is simple.
"2) How did you find Cleric's post and what did you take away from it?"
My typical experience of reading Cleric is that I don't agree with many of his presuppositions and I find that it isn't easy or very enjoyable to try to strike up a conversation bout that. That's partially on me, but I see the same thing with many others here. I already know that he doesn't find me to be clear and I understand that on many levels. So while I blame myself for part of my finding him very unclear, I think it mainly comes down to simply not sharing many of his assumptions and conclusions. It was cool that he can comfortably say that Steiner was just palin wrong in his clairvoyant explanation as to why exactly red is the color that causes the bull to go wild. I predict that within 12 years he'll have a same comfort in seeing how Steiner was wrong about what causes non-white skin to form (for the next 1,500 years).
For TM: tell me if you think I said anything in this post that implies psychological reasons that Ashivin evades or doesn't engage 'correctly' or with 'integrity.' Also, tell me if you think I've said anything that implies there is a 'moral' way that they should be engaging with me. I'd love your feedback as you are super observant on this stuff.
"1) Are you presuming to know what the "vast majority of people on this list" can find easy to follow before most of them have even read it?"
I think it is technically possible to know for sure, but I haven't done nor do I wish to do any of the things it would take to know for sure if over 51% of the people here would say Cleric isn't very clear to them. However, I could explain why I think it is a reasonable inference to assume that at least 51% of us here might like Cleric but find that we don't think he's very clear or often even correct in his assumptions let alone his conclusions.
Yes, we agree that people can ask questions when they are curious. And if we find that people aren't asking us many questions, we can ask ourselves what can be the various causes of that. I don't assume the answer is simple.
"2) How did you find Cleric's post and what did you take away from it?"
My typical experience of reading Cleric is that I don't agree with many of his presuppositions and I find that it isn't easy or very enjoyable to try to strike up a conversation bout that. That's partially on me, but I see the same thing with many others here. I already know that he doesn't find me to be clear and I understand that on many levels. So while I blame myself for part of my finding him very unclear, I think it mainly comes down to simply not sharing many of his assumptions and conclusions. It was cool that he can comfortably say that Steiner was just palin wrong in his clairvoyant explanation as to why exactly red is the color that causes the bull to go wild. I predict that within 12 years he'll have a same comfort in seeing how Steiner was wrong about what causes non-white skin to form (for the next 1,500 years).
For TM: tell me if you think I said anything in this post that implies psychological reasons that Ashivin evades or doesn't engage 'correctly' or with 'integrity.' Also, tell me if you think I've said anything that implies there is a 'moral' way that they should be engaging with me. I'd love your feedback as you are super observant on this stuff.
-
findingblanks
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am
Re: A clean room for a specific exploration
WOW!
Look at this:
Justin said to me:
"Hi FB. Good to meet you to. I didn't intend to stay long in this room so I'm popping out of it now.. Cheers"
Now go back in your mind and think of just a tiny tiny % of the claims that Ashvin has made about my integrity in which he blatently says in public that I am dishonest, that I am purposefully not answering his questions the right way, that I am exemplifying trait associated with Ahriman and lucifer, and just pick some of the best examples of when I ask a simple question or make an arguement and Ashvin comes back with LONG rsponses about my personality structure and what's wrong with it.
Now, go find Soul's responses to when Ashvin does that. Also, while you are looking and the kinds of things Ashvin effortlessly says about my intentions and inner life, go try to find examples of me shouting in publlic what is wrong with Ashvin morally and all the ill-will behind how he speaks about me.
Now, after that, reread what Justin said, here:
"Hi FB. Good to meet you to. I didn't intend to stay long in this room so I'm popping out of it now.. Cheers"
And immediately see how Soul responded:
"Yeah, just to make some snide remark, yet again intended to provoke antagonism and antipathy. Pre-moderation may again be considered."
Now, I constantly speak to what I find so refreshing, smart and wonderful about Soul. Sure, I think he is inconsistent with regard to when he really gets stern about people needing to provide exact links and titles of books when they are simply chatting, especially when they acknowledge that they are speaking from memory or pointing to the best spot to find it. But that's simply a difference of opinion.
I will say that I think there are specific reasons you see Soul act so differently in this context. I definitely object and find it somewhat disaapointing. It hurts my feelings a tiny bit. But not too much and I know that from his point of view him threatening to pre-moderate for your kind of comment feels perfectly consistent with how he handles even Ashvin's most recent public comments about me not having integrity. For the record, I find value in Ashivin speaking to me and others in that way and I would NOT want him to be censored for that.
And for the record, I would find it utterly ridiculous if Soul censored Justin or anybody else for saying what he said.
Yes, I do think there is a fairly distinct invitation to shadow dance that Soul just handed me. But I decline. I'd rather just state exactly what I find most perplexing and interesting about his response here. If you are worried that I don't think Soul is a great person, go find any of my longer winded comments that specify why I feel fortunate he's in charge of these here hills.
Look at this:
Justin said to me:
"Hi FB. Good to meet you to. I didn't intend to stay long in this room so I'm popping out of it now.. Cheers"
Now go back in your mind and think of just a tiny tiny % of the claims that Ashvin has made about my integrity in which he blatently says in public that I am dishonest, that I am purposefully not answering his questions the right way, that I am exemplifying trait associated with Ahriman and lucifer, and just pick some of the best examples of when I ask a simple question or make an arguement and Ashvin comes back with LONG rsponses about my personality structure and what's wrong with it.
Now, go find Soul's responses to when Ashvin does that. Also, while you are looking and the kinds of things Ashvin effortlessly says about my intentions and inner life, go try to find examples of me shouting in publlic what is wrong with Ashvin morally and all the ill-will behind how he speaks about me.
Now, after that, reread what Justin said, here:
"Hi FB. Good to meet you to. I didn't intend to stay long in this room so I'm popping out of it now.. Cheers"
And immediately see how Soul responded:
"Yeah, just to make some snide remark, yet again intended to provoke antagonism and antipathy. Pre-moderation may again be considered."
Now, I constantly speak to what I find so refreshing, smart and wonderful about Soul. Sure, I think he is inconsistent with regard to when he really gets stern about people needing to provide exact links and titles of books when they are simply chatting, especially when they acknowledge that they are speaking from memory or pointing to the best spot to find it. But that's simply a difference of opinion.
I will say that I think there are specific reasons you see Soul act so differently in this context. I definitely object and find it somewhat disaapointing. It hurts my feelings a tiny bit. But not too much and I know that from his point of view him threatening to pre-moderate for your kind of comment feels perfectly consistent with how he handles even Ashvin's most recent public comments about me not having integrity. For the record, I find value in Ashivin speaking to me and others in that way and I would NOT want him to be censored for that.
And for the record, I would find it utterly ridiculous if Soul censored Justin or anybody else for saying what he said.
Yes, I do think there is a fairly distinct invitation to shadow dance that Soul just handed me. But I decline. I'd rather just state exactly what I find most perplexing and interesting about his response here. If you are worried that I don't think Soul is a great person, go find any of my longer winded comments that specify why I feel fortunate he's in charge of these here hills.
-
findingblanks
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am
Re: A clean room for a specific exploration
Justin,
Even though Soul quoted your other comment, maybe he meant that you might need to be censored for saying:
"Oh dear, what a dilemma. Ashvin is being forced to think for himself."
Again, I'd ask people to see if Justin's comments are even a fraction as snide as the kind that Soul never comments on by and about other people.
Now, I think Justin has already left this chat and I can understand why. But if you see this, thanks for chiming in and feel free to join the informal group of us that observe some of the patterns here in a gmail group.
For context (to justin or other future readers) I created this thread because I didn't feel it was appropriate taking up other thread's spaces when Ashvin jumps in with direct questions to me. They range from very respectful and interesting to disrespectful and very hard to understand. And I had made clear that the moment a person begins to shift the conversation from the content to shadow elements I will sometimes try to 'shadow dance' with them by slightly exaggerating their projection and also showing them that we can still connect and be civil. So this space was made to help clean up the mess that was happening in other people's spaces while having a more explicit area to view how shadow dancing may or may not be useful. Those in the informal group read various posts here and in other threads and look openly at the patterns, and, to be clear, we start by acknowledging we all do this and have these tendencies. It's just sometimes perplexing when a conversation suddenly shifts and becomes about shadow. I prefer when that does not happen. But many many months ago, a complicated conversation about Steiner and Schopenhauer suddenly shifted to being about my ill-will, poor reading, evil intentions, and many more comments about my secret indentions and inner life. And yet I was simply pointing out that I don't think Steiner had a great grasp on all of Schopenhaur's work and that this affected the nature of the how the question could be approached.
Bye Justin.
Even though Soul quoted your other comment, maybe he meant that you might need to be censored for saying:
"Oh dear, what a dilemma. Ashvin is being forced to think for himself."
Again, I'd ask people to see if Justin's comments are even a fraction as snide as the kind that Soul never comments on by and about other people.
Now, I think Justin has already left this chat and I can understand why. But if you see this, thanks for chiming in and feel free to join the informal group of us that observe some of the patterns here in a gmail group.
For context (to justin or other future readers) I created this thread because I didn't feel it was appropriate taking up other thread's spaces when Ashvin jumps in with direct questions to me. They range from very respectful and interesting to disrespectful and very hard to understand. And I had made clear that the moment a person begins to shift the conversation from the content to shadow elements I will sometimes try to 'shadow dance' with them by slightly exaggerating their projection and also showing them that we can still connect and be civil. So this space was made to help clean up the mess that was happening in other people's spaces while having a more explicit area to view how shadow dancing may or may not be useful. Those in the informal group read various posts here and in other threads and look openly at the patterns, and, to be clear, we start by acknowledging we all do this and have these tendencies. It's just sometimes perplexing when a conversation suddenly shifts and becomes about shadow. I prefer when that does not happen. But many many months ago, a complicated conversation about Steiner and Schopenhauer suddenly shifted to being about my ill-will, poor reading, evil intentions, and many more comments about my secret indentions and inner life. And yet I was simply pointing out that I don't think Steiner had a great grasp on all of Schopenhaur's work and that this affected the nature of the how the question could be approached.
Bye Justin.
-
findingblanks
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am
Re: A clean room for a specific exploration
Justin just saw your apology for being disparaging. More points to you! On that note, if anybody here ever felt I made a disparaging comment about their integrity or inner life, let me know please. I like contenscious debate but I don't like taking swipes at people's integrity unless I feel I have concrete grounds to be disturbed. Recently Ashvin claimed I hadn't given context to my comments on Steiner's claims about what causes non-white skin to exist and I told Soul that I thought it crossed a line. Soul disagreed and his reasoning was pretty good so I let it go. Even then, I don't think I said anything disparaging about why Ashvin might have said it. I simply pointed out that it was factually incorrect. One of the problem with these long threads is that somebody can say you've not cited a source and others won't realize that you started by explicitly citing the source, how to get it, and offering to personally get it into anybody's hands, along with explicitly quoting long passages and distinguishing those from your commentary.
-
Soul_of_Shu
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: A clean room for a specific exploration
FB ... As Justin has since conceded that his remark about "Ashvin being forced to think for himself" was a "disparaging" remark, and which IMO was intended as a taunt to bait Ashvin, further provoking antagonism and antipathy, you're further getting triggered by it, and attempting to trigger some drama and shadow-boxing just can't be taken seriously as anything more than the same kind of baiting. For the record, both in the forum and through some PMs, I've engaged with Ashvin about what I see as his cross-examination demeanour to get at the the core of a philosophical disagreement coming across as provocative and triggering, and while that may work in a court of law, it may well be counterproductive in a forum like this where the focus is more on encouraging mutually meaningful dialogos. So while you are free to disagree with the way I handle these exchanges on a case-to-case basis, in future, do so via PM, as others have done. And if I need any clinical help with my shadow work, I'll send you a PM. Meanwhile, if you're looking for drama, try Netflix.findingblanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:07 pm WOW!
Look at this:
Justin said to me:
"Hi FB. Good to meet you to. I didn't intend to stay long in this room so I'm popping out of it now.. Cheers"
Now go back in your mind and think of just a tiny tiny % of the claims that Ashvin has made about my integrity in which he blatently says in public that I am dishonest, that I am purposefully not answering his questions the right way, that I am exemplifying trait associated with Ahriman and lucifer, and just pick some of the best examples of when I ask a simple question or make an arguement and Ashvin comes back with LONG rsponses about my personality structure and what's wrong with it.
Now, go find Soul's responses to when Ashvin does that. Also, while you are looking and the kinds of things Ashvin effortlessly says about my intentions and inner life, go try to find examples of me shouting in publlic what is wrong with Ashvin morally and all the ill-will behind how he speaks about me.
Now, after that, reread what Justin said, here:
"Hi FB. Good to meet you to. I didn't intend to stay long in this room so I'm popping out of it now.. Cheers"
And immediately see how Soul responded:
"Yeah, just to make some snide remark, yet again intended to provoke antagonism and antipathy. Pre-moderation may again be considered."
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
-
findingblanks
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am
Re: A clean room for a specific exploration
Thanks Soul. Your comment about needing to maybe censor Justin quoted his kind exchange with me. Then I saw your mistake and commented that it might have been because of his other remark.
Then I pointed out that you have never done that move in public with Ashvin. Not that I've seen. You then point to your idea of what is going on inside my psyche and my secret goals.
You know what? I can acknowledge that in the blend of my intentions when I typed those posts, they did include some of my shadow, along with my honest attempt to speak objectively about how I took your sudden threat to come down on 'snide' remarks in this forum.
But my hunch is that you won't acknowledge that your shadow definately shaped your claim about my intentions. You could have resopnded to me in dozens of ways but you chose to talk about me begin triggered. I wasn't triggered. I was engaged. That includes being curious, confused, and opinionated regarding your inconsistency. But you chose 'triggered' for a reason and you chose to frame my responses as that. Fair enough> I can see the logic of that.
But I also know that I'm probably at least 82% correct that your shadow is playing a much larger role than you know/admit when it comes to this odd inconsistency of when you get stern and when you don't.
Yes, with my last comment I pointed directly to your inner life. And I framed it as my speculation and I've given background and some ways of assessing whether I might be on to something. Most importantly, I can geniunely express a desire to be wrong here. That's very rare in these here hills. Sometimes, often, you contribute to loosening things up and helping people get back on track.
Also, and you may not respect this, this is my thread and so I'd very much hope you never censor Ashvin when he decides to disparage me. I don't mind. However, slander and lying is different and I know you have your eyes out for that sort of thing and I'm very grateful.
Then I pointed out that you have never done that move in public with Ashvin. Not that I've seen. You then point to your idea of what is going on inside my psyche and my secret goals.
You know what? I can acknowledge that in the blend of my intentions when I typed those posts, they did include some of my shadow, along with my honest attempt to speak objectively about how I took your sudden threat to come down on 'snide' remarks in this forum.
But my hunch is that you won't acknowledge that your shadow definately shaped your claim about my intentions. You could have resopnded to me in dozens of ways but you chose to talk about me begin triggered. I wasn't triggered. I was engaged. That includes being curious, confused, and opinionated regarding your inconsistency. But you chose 'triggered' for a reason and you chose to frame my responses as that. Fair enough> I can see the logic of that.
But I also know that I'm probably at least 82% correct that your shadow is playing a much larger role than you know/admit when it comes to this odd inconsistency of when you get stern and when you don't.
Yes, with my last comment I pointed directly to your inner life. And I framed it as my speculation and I've given background and some ways of assessing whether I might be on to something. Most importantly, I can geniunely express a desire to be wrong here. That's very rare in these here hills. Sometimes, often, you contribute to loosening things up and helping people get back on track.
Also, and you may not respect this, this is my thread and so I'd very much hope you never censor Ashvin when he decides to disparage me. I don't mind. However, slander and lying is different and I know you have your eyes out for that sort of thing and I'm very grateful.