Nonsense

Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense.
Robert Frost

Originally Posted by Ivy

Then explain rather than judge.

Your comprehension of the sentence leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe if you read it without the a confrontational attitude you will see it for what it really says. Or you could ask someone for help.

As I remember you were not part of the first six pages, therefore, I was not, at the time, talking to you. And since you are the only one having a problem understanding I wonder if you would like some suggestions on learning material to help raise your level of aptitude. I would happy to do this for you.

Actually I find it a very simple statement, I don't understand your difficulty with the incapacity to get the jest of it.

[SeaZen]

Originally Posted by VinceField

I feel like Gem didn't quite take things as far as I have just stated, but I do perceive a small degree of this, as I have previously pointed out. Stating an entire community's beliefs and discussions to be nonsense isn't too far from this, and even though Gem claims that he had no bad intentions and was simply being humorous

I do remember GEM dissing "vibrations" when I mentioned that on a previous thread he started a while back that wasn't a joke thread so I tend to agree with this assessment somewhat. I did explain to him that "vibrations" is accurate from a physics point of view as we are all made of vibrating atomic particles and he then understood so I have no idea why he mentioned that part.

Regardless, I did find his OP humorous from a agnostic point of view and it wasn't "offensive" IMO though I can understand how others found it so. Some of the stereotypical behavior he listed had a grain of truth to them (the hugging emoticons etc). However, being able to laugh at ourselves and to not take ourselves and our beliefs so seriously is a very important spiritual quality to have IMO.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by SeaZen

LOL! Gotta love the dry sarcastic humor! Even if it was unintended.

Spiritual chat is like discussing "common sense" but on a "spiritual" level. e.g. someone can say something that make "sense" and all of a sudden the light goes on for many and they nod their head in agreement, much like common sense.

What is your point in participating in this forum if spirituality and spiritual insights are a bunch of nonsense to you?

Of course the dry humour was intended.

My reasons for participating are primarily internet addiction, partially social isolation in real life and a bit in interest of meditation and principles of non-duality.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by VinceField

I can't say that this exemplifies Gem, but I have seen the behavior you speak of many times before. People joining online communities and discussions only to declare the beliefs, perspectives, and experiences of the members to be false. They simply desire to assert their own beliefs and put down others, as it provides quite a rush for their ego and solidifies their own false sense of identity and erroneous system of beliefs. I feel like Gem didn't quite take things as far as I have just stated, but I do perceive a small degree of this, as I have previously pointed out. Stating an entire community's beliefs and discussions to be nonsense isn't too far from this, and even though Gem claims that he had no bad intentions and was simply being humorous, it is irresponsible and uncaring behavior in the very least, and it is clear that there is a degree of clinging to a set of beliefs and holding them above the beliefs of others, as can be seen in the 20-some pages of defending his position and claiming the perspectives of others to be false.

The bolded is not true, it's a lie, because it's abundantly clear that the entire post refers to Gem, and you know that's how people will interpret it

I wonder why there's a huge narrative going on about me, and how that narrative is forming a consensus in certain circles, but also creating a divide that brings about some controversy.

People can go and find where I asserted any position on any person, which would be hard to find. If on the other hand one were to search for personal assertions about Gem, there's at least 15 or 20 and probably more, and on the whole, Gem is largely the subject of conversation.

When people who are part of that conversation about 'Gem's ego' and other derisions then comment on caring in a hypocritical way in view of the fact no consideration is given to the high likelihood that the barrage of personally offensive personal commentary would be hurtful, it becomes clear that this notion of who cares and who is uncaring is merely a pretentious positioning strategy.

Personally, I don't mind the derision which is solely used to make Gem a lowly portrait on the spiritual status quo, but it does demonstrate very clearly how the 'spiritual dictatorship' stamps out free spontaneous expression via a power system that is dispersed throughout the membership, and those members who dare become their own person with all its contradictions, frailties, vulnerabilities and imperfections will be subjected to very unpleasant commentary, not by an individual, but by a growing pack of 'spiritual wolves'.

One should seriously ask, in light of Vince's post, who is the person that is most frequently put down on this thread (and who is putting that person down)?

In fact, Gem is a very colourful persona who has compassion and care, harbours not a shred of malice or ill will and is as kind as spring rain, but what is this voice of Gem that speaks of Gem? Is that voice the one which is untrue?

People only care about the portraits in their own minds, they don't care what I have to say for myself. They don't care if I get to choose what to disclose or keep private. They don't care if I'm hurt by the onslaught of belittling commentary, and even after I say this, that commentary will continue, and there'll be commentary about others too... and if you don't want to be subjected to such a thing, then you have to join the pack. You don't have to be outspoken about it, you can just run the narrativ in your mind, and perhaps post an occasional 'thumbs up' where such commentary is made.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by SeaZen

I do remember GEM dissing "vibrations" when I mentioned that on a previous thread he started a while back that wasn't a joke thread so I tend to agree with this assessment somewhat. I did explain to him that "vibrations" is accurate from a physics point of view as we are all made of vibrating atomic particles and he then understood so I have no idea why he mentioned that part.

Regardless, I did find his OP humorous from a agnostic point of view and it wasn't "offensive" IMO though I can understand how others found it so. Some of the stereotypical behavior he listed had a grain of truth to them (the hugging emoticons etc). However, being able to laugh at ourselves and to not take ourselves and our beliefs so seriously is a very important spiritual quality to have IMO.

Some people go against the grain because it makes them feel unique. Again, an ego thing.

I was not offended in the least, although I was aware that others may take offense from his words, and recognized that his post was not there to help anyone, but simply to assert his opinions with the likely risk of hurting others feelings, or rubbing some the wrong way in the very least.

People aren't here to be mocked or to hear jokes. There is great skill in conducting right speech. That is:

[1] "Do I speak at the right time, or not?

[2] "Do I speak of facts, or not?

[3] "Do I speak gently or harshly?

[4] "Do I speak profitable words or not?

[5] "Do I speak with a kindly heart, or inwardly malicious?

Several aspects of his post violate a majority of these guidelines.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by Gem

The bolded is not true, it's a lie, because it's abundantly clear that the entire post refers to Gem, and you know that's how people will interpret it

This part of my comment had nothing to do with you:

People joining online communities and discussions only to declare the beliefs, perspectives, and experiences of the members to be false. They simply desire to assert their own beliefs and put down others, as it provides quite a rush for their ego and solidifies their own false sense of identity and erroneous system of beliefs.

I see you share some of the same ideals as others on this forum and are in the very least somewhat interested in spirituality. Despite you calling all of this "nonsense," you actively participate in this nonsense on a daily basis, and probably live it out to a degree, so this in itself sets you apart from the people I was referring to above.

When people who are part of that conversation about 'Gem's ego' and other derisions then comment on caring in a hypocritical way in view of the fact no consideration is given to the high likelihood that the barrage of personally offensive personal commentary would be hurtful, it becomes clear that this notion of who cares and who is uncaring is merely a pretentious positioning strategy.

When a person is carrying out harmful behavior and then denies that this harmful behavior even exists, most people find it to be in that person's best interest to make this harmful behavior known to that person, even if it runs the risk of hurting their ego.

One should seriously ask, in light of Vince's post, who is the person that is most frequently put down on this thread (and who is putting that person down)?

I can't speak for others here, but I know for a fact that nothing I have said in this thread has been aimed at putting you down. I have shared my perspective to help you see something that you seem to not want to see, as I hope anyone else would do for me.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by ponygirl

Agree!! I'm sure I'm not the only lurker who found the OP humorous, but in reading this excellent thread I've come to know those in my life who will position themselves for whatever reason... Thank you for this.

That's Ok... because it's not actually easy to just be ourselves. Ever since birth we all had to live up to expectations of the social world, to be successful and make others proud, or at least I assume that because it is certainly true in my case.

People might not comprehend the resistance I'm exerting on becoming what others expect me to become and behave in a constrained way according to what I know will be accepted. Clearly, how I'm behaving is not accepted and others are striving to regulate it even though I'm harmless... but of some threat to the greater collective form which is the narrow realm of social acceptability. People would have me pretend to be a perfect person and behave like a spiritual person should, and out in the world they'd have me behave as a 'contributing member of society' (does that really mean anything?)... we have these kinds of slogans within in the greater social discourse that we use to conform to and control each other. I'm not young, and during my life I have seen the discourse change a great deal, and the new discourse often contradicts that of old. It's all invented for the convenience of some to the exclusion of others, and it's often the case that to be yourself also means being excluded, disowned, or even imprisoned (consider a homosexual in a conservatively religious family and community)

SO... even though being as you are is the only real way to get to know yourself and be happy, there are strong forces against that, but none-the-less, despite all the family, society, social and peer pressures, being just as you are, genuinely and sincerely, is fundamentally truthful and imperative for our ongoing happiness.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by VinceField

This part of my comment had nothing to do with you:

I see you share some of the same ideals as others on this forum and are in the very least somewhat interested in spirituality. Despite you calling all of this "nonsense," you actively participate in this nonsense on a daily basis, and probably live it out to a degree, so this in itself sets you apart from the people I was referring to above.



When a person is carrying out harmful behavior and then denies that this harmful behavior even exists, most people find it to be in that person's best interest to make this harmful behavior known to that person, even if it runs the risk of hurting their ego.



I can't speak for others here, but I know for a fact that nothing I have said in this thread has been aimed at putting you down. I have shared my perspective to help you see something that you seem to not want to see, as I hope anyone else would do for me.

1) I didn't ask for help and clearly stated that I won't accept it.

2) All the nonsense is like a portrait in you head, and I don't hold that vision.

3) what you want is fine, but that's nothing to do with what I want.

4) If what you are doing is helping, and I'm saying, 'no thanks, then I don't expect to hear from you again.

Originally Posted by Aquahorse

Your comprehension of the sentence leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe if you read it without the a confrontational attitude you will see it for what it really says. Or you could ask someone for help.

As I remember you were not part of the first six pages, therefore, I was not, at the time, talking to you. And since you are the only one having a problem understanding I wonder if you would like some suggestions on learning material to help raise your level of aptitude. I would happy to do this for you.

Actually I find it a very simple statement, I don't understand your difficulty with the incapacity to get the jest of it.

Much of the thread highlights that people in general, but perhaps more so in spirituality, will attempt to position themselves by positioning the 'other' as being more or less superior to that. Your language suggests thatyou are using that positioning when you write:

After I got to the sixth page, I skipped to the end to see at 27 pages it was still continuing badly. I became sad realizing that most here are just as dysfunctional as the rest of the population. Truly enlightened individuals (Christ is a good example) don't need to proclaim the crown.

I'm not interested in enlightenment, but I am interested in the view that you expressed in regard to your positioning of 'others'. So I have asked you to explain it.

So far, rather than just explain it, you have displayed the nature of positioning = rather than stand by the merit of your own view by explaining it further, you are using accusation and judgemental notions about my intelligence and in this way, continue to avoid giving any explanation so far.