Hi Moshe.
There is no ganging up that I see. You and I have been conversing in this thread
for a long time. How is my continuing to respond "ganging up"? I do not conspire
with Androgynus or anyone to "get" anybody. You are simply witnessing us share
some similar points of view sometimes. Androgynus has posted about people making
value judgements and not allowing diversity. I come from a slightly different angle,
but that does bother me too. You have stated that my views are untrue - that is why
you have drawn a more pointed debate from me, a retaliation of sorts. It really is
offensive to say that what someone else sees is untrue. Why can't you allow that you
just don't grasp what I see? Why do you have to imagine you understand me and I am wrong?
Androgynus has been defending this since before he and I became friends I think. So it
isn't ganging up as I have said - just shared life experience.
I have gone off on your subjectivity because you laughed and said "Of course objectivity
exists" and yet you haven't really examined it. I don't recall Androgynus writing any posts
about subjectivity bothering him.
Also, this is not a big issue IMO. Besides you and Leo, I am not making waves with anyone.
As zoas23 has recently said, he and I are good. We have not continued the debate. I can let
things go.
Leo is a personal project of mine, a conscious decision. I even let that go until
recently when he has made outrageous blanket statements that anyone would recognise as
unproveable opinions, but he says them as if he knows them for facts when they are so
blatantly untrue I can't help myself.
I actually have not claimed to be egoless. Leo has.
What I say is that I don't identify with the ego. You see, something you don't understand and
filter through your system and judge "me" again. In my seeing, one does not have to kill the
ego. Let the ego ego I say. Just don't mistake it for you. So you are wrong.
BTW - my retaliations are what I accuse others of doing? No I don't. Quote where I have accused
other of retaliating. This makes no sense to me.
I ooze with judgement and I have convinced myself I am free of it from my lofty perch of being above it all?
Where did I say I was above judgement? This is another assumption/misinterpretation of me by you.
There are times when I make a point to show the difference between an observation and a judgement.
When I am not making that point, how do you know what I think? I freely participate in judgement
sometimes. I have not claimed otherwise. You projected that onto me from your partial knowledge/
understanding of my views.
One thing that bothers me is when people imagine they understand someone based solely on their self
as measure. Trust me, I will tell you when you understand me. It means absolutely nothing for you to
determine that you understand me. Again, this is why you can't determine that something I see is untrue.
What you would say, if you were objective, isn't that my foundation is untrue, but that your understanding
of my foundation doesn't seem true to you. Any objective person will recognise the flaw in the subjective
system which we use to interpret/understand others.
Again, no I haven't claimed I am beyond constructs. Where do I say that? Every word I write is a construct.
Let me clarify this once and for all (hopefully). I am the same as everyone else except perhaps for the fact
that I do not believe in my doings. I still do them. What makes a big difference is to not believe in what you
do. And what makes an even bigger difference, internally - externally I appear as everyone else - is to no
longer believe in the doer/ego as your identity. This doesn't mean my ego doesn't exist and act like everyone
elses. I just don't identify with it all the time. Sometimes I do for a moment, and then I step back and
remember who I am. If you knew about this from personal experience, you would admit what an amazing
difference this is - it changes everything. But nothing externally, which I have pointed out in this thread many
times when I said the world doesn't change its doings, but to the person without a self (I should have said w/out
belief in the self) s/he no longer sees suffering, rape, etc.
I can't help how you see me. But I can help how I see myself. And it makes a big difference whether I believe
in my doings and the doer and no difference at all if you believe in my doings or doer. Does that not make sense?
It makes perfect sense that I would appear confused or lying about myself to you. That fits perfectly with what
I have been saying if you believe in your doings and doer, which you do. Of course you won't see me as not the doer.
Of course you will see me as misguided or deceptive. That fits perfectly with what I have been saying about projections
and knowledge and the knower. So why would you not see that if you understand me enough to judge me?
I pounce on anyone with any sense of knowing truth? Where am I pouncing besides you? Leo excepted - I freely
admitted my pleasure in pouncing on Leo. So two people I pounce on = everyone with a sense of knowing the truth?
I will always challenge what can be challenged. I think that's a wonderful thing, that's science, that's how we grow.
We face challenges. Either our view withstands the challenge or it falls apart. One should not be attached to their
view more than the evidence of what can prevail in the face of challenge. That would be subjective preference of
one's illusions over science. If you tell me you want that, I won't challenge you if you don't try to impose it on others.
But you admit and allow our philosophical debate. Now I am pouncing? Yes, I did become more agressive, but so did
you when you called my foundation untrue. If you want to absolutely denounce my seeing, I'll absolutely argue yours.
If you want to respectfully present your view, you have seen I can do that too. Why this victimisation? I am letting
you lead the dance.
"There is an autocracy now, because your moderation, which opposes anything that stands on any sort of belief or ideals.
THAT is the new chain of control, which you are all swinging around, in support of each other."
Not from me. Yes, I have argued against belief, but not on a personal level.
Well, when you took this to the personal level by saying my seeing was untrue,
I went there with you. But I'm pretty sure I only butt in when people project these
beliefs on others, or claim something false about me. Why don't you see that as autocracy -
people projecting their beliefs on others? You're not concerned about THAT autocracy.
Where's the objectivity? Unbias?
RogerC was one of the best minds? Don't get me started.
I'll allow your personal preferences, but there's nothing objective about
your opinon of RogerC. Or let's say your idea of the best mind is far different than mine.
You see, you're coming close to making a statement as if it is objectively absolutely true,
and thus you are inviting attack - the same as when RogerC talks about "our God" as if his
idea of god is everyone's or the true one. I hope you can see this, because the only thing
you can do to help prevent disagreements here is to be responsible for your word and be
conscious about not projecting and making absolute blanket statements.
Moderators are also simply participants of the forum most of the time. I wouldn't get caught
up on the label. I'm just a person. I am not moderating anyone right now, nor have I had to
in a long time. I usually make a statement when I find it necessary to say something as a moderator.
Otherwise, I'm just me. There's no abuse of power here. If I can't converse with people freely and
be a moderator, I'll stop being a moderator. This place is my main source of talking to people with
like minds. I am only a moderator when I am executing some moderating function. Otherwise,
please do not treat me any differently than anyone else. I do not demand respect or anything
for myself that I don't argue for all.
I would not presume to know why people do not "chime in". Again, this lacks objectivity.
I really can't believe how much we disagree on what is objective.
If I may help, again, when you laughed and said "of course objectivity exists", you, as an objective
observer, must know that you have invited attack by that response. I know when I am inviting
attack and I don't blame people when they respond to my invitations. I practice assuming responsibility.
If you don't do that, you will feel victimised by attacks. I hope this helps.
solomon
