[ Closed ] A few questions about Professional Wrestling (Page 4 of 11)

So, your motives are to do what, then? Jump into a discussion of which you were not originally a part and then demand that everyone stop having differences of opinion because YOU have an issue with it? Think about this one for a moment, because your last post is actually quite at odds with itself. For starters, you are assuming that people here are holding to "superior" or "elitist" thinking just because we have opinions about this thread and it's originator that are not as "open-minded" as you would like. You made a very important statement about this in your last post: "I would call that conformist BS.  This world shouldn't be ruled by bullies." I think this speaks volumes about your motives in jumping to Moralman's defense here, and your underlying agenda whether you realize it or not. Firstly, you speak of conformist BS as being a bad thing, and you are very correct in that statement: comformity *is* bullshit, and I'm sure that's something everyone here can agree on. The problem here is that you are expecting everyone on this forum to conform to your expectations of how we should think, speak, act, or behave towards anyone else here. You are attempting to limit freedom of expression and individuality due to holding to some misguided ideal that people should be able to exist in a world where they can feel safe and unthreatened by others. You are not doing anyone any favors there, even though you may feel as though you are acting in their best interests. The fact of the matter is that we can not know what is in anyone else's best interest. Most of the time, we don't even know what is in our own best interest. But I think this must plug into the other part of what you said about "this world shouldn't be run by bullies". I can only assume that you have been subjected to some amount of bullying in your time here on this planet, and still feel pretty damned upset about it. I know that many people on this forum, myself included, have been subjected to bullying in the past. But, guess what? It toughened us up. It made us more aware of our surroundings, and more capable of standing up to other people. We don't need some champion of equality and fairness rushing in to our rescue, and what you are attempting to do--however noble minded you may think it is--is actually quite limiting in the long term.

The way I, and I think most other people here, see it is that Moralman or just about any other intelligent person should know better than to come into this forum and start making ridiculous posts about wrestling after 2012.

You're new here Haven, so perhaps you haven't yet understood what generally makes this forum so great - It's the fact that the majority of people here are looking for intelligent conversation, with likeminded people, about a subject we're deeply interested in. That's something that's hard to come across in most alternative forums because they are often spoilt by a minority (or majority) of idiots and crackpots. Perhaps you haven't had that experience on other forums so far, but many of us here have done.

So what nobody here wants is this forum to descend into a worthless junk forum where too many idiots drown out the people who are looking for an intelligent discussion.

Now perhaps you consider wrestling after 2012 to be an intelligent discussion, and that's entirely your right, just don't expect very many people here to agree with you.

Most people here just want to keep this forum idiot-free, and if you don't consider the following statements to be fairly idiotic then perhaps this isn't the right forum for you, or Moralman, to be posting in:

To me, what has been overlooked is the incredible asset Moralman's post has been -- at least to me.

For starters it is so completely out of my frame of reference that anyone would watch wrestling, that I found myself completely amazed that Moralman would come up with this.  And yet ... even if it was meant seriously, how smart to come up with something that shakes, at least me, out of my "view of the world." 

Don Juan was forever trying to shake Castenada from his view of the world, so much so that sometimes he would whack him - hard.  Stuart Wilde speaks of having attendees at his retreats do all sorts of things that are completely "outrageous" ...

Thus, having someone post about an outrageous concept as wrestling vis a vis 2012 -- I'd say is fabulous.  NOT because I wish to discuss the pros and cons of wrestling but because I can watch my own re-action to something so inane (in my view) and also watch the re-actions of others.  Pro and con.

The "enemy" is not the perpetrator but our re-actions.  That's what Theun Mares, Castenada and a host of others talk about at length.  It's not possible, I don't think, to become a real "stalker" if one doesn't first stalk themselves.

Over and over.

Christine B.

"I can understand you points, Haven, but I still see a big streak of victim mentality running through your posts. If anyone is defending a hopeless cause here, it's you. It isn't that you are "wrong" for wanting others to act as you would have them act, it is simply misguided and entirely unrealistic."

That's your opinion that there is victim mentality.  Perhaps you see it because you have a predator mentality?  I don't think it's unrealistic.  Even the best and brightest have a utopian ideal and strive to reach it.  It is unrealistic to assume that you will come to your senses; it is not unrealistic to battle an injustice.

""Do you feel upset that the world is run as it is?" No, I don't. The world is as it is for a good reason. I've made numerous postings here to that effect."

I just don't buy this.  Women would still not be voting, and black people would still have seperate restrooms.

""More to the truth, however, is that I assume you're tapped into an emotional response to my post, because I'm not conforming to your desired reaction." First off, everything humans do is colored by emotional responses. Everything. Anyone who says they don't get emotional is an outright liar. Personally however, I couldn't care less what you do or do not conform to. Do as you please, and let others do likewise."

However, are you impinging on my right to do as I please, mainly, here, to disagree and argue against you?

""Yes, bring on the nukes and all that other hate that toughens us up." Bit of a difference between having a nuclear weapon detonate over your head and taking criticism from other people. One of those is par for the course of everyday life here, the other is not. Just a little bit of a difference there. You are running to extremes with what I said and then using that to try and justify your point of view."

No, I am not.  I'm using your line of reasoning to justify anything.

"It limits to bully someone else into submission.  It limits to ridicule someone else's opinion." Victim mentality at its finest. You are assuming Moralman is some poor, defenseless sap who needs protecting. He isn't.

That isn't victim mentality.  As for anyone being some poor, defenseless sap, I'm not assuming anything.  You are assuming much more than I am.

Just because you keep scrounging for reasoning in a "do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" mentality, doesn't make it justifiable.

Um... sure.

Teddy,

This is exactly what made this thread so odd to so many of the folks here. This whole "Wrestling for Jesus" thing seems quite paradoxical. If you read back over the posts here, as I did today, you'll notice that most people weren't being unduly harsh towards Moralman, they were genuinely dumbfounded by his original post and are simply trying (and failing) to understand his reasoning. Wrestling is pretty mindless entertainment; about as mindless as any Hollywood action movie ever made. Sure, I can understand it may be fun for many who watch it, just like those movies can be, and if you enjoy it then great! Doesn't make any difference to me. But my opinion remains unchanged: how an apparent "man of peace" can profess a love for a violent adrenaline-charged spectacle like wrestling, then spend serious time contemplating whether it'll still be around after whatever events he believes will transpire in 2012, is really quite beyond me. It's like pondering whether Teletubbies will still be around eight years from now. You might be better off asking whether HUMANITY will still be around then. I could well understand the reasoning behind that, could see the importance, could accept the validity. But wrestling? "Come, Lord! Destroy the evil unbelievers! Let 'em burn in the Lake of Fire forever! Just ... leave the wrestlers alone, will ya?" Well, whatever floats your boat, I guess. I just think that we have far bigger concerns right now.

Surprising, strange, yes. Even though wrestling isn't on my mind I personally don't find it that odd. It is not hard to understand why John asks this question. John himself tried to explain it a few times. But perhaps he is not clear enough, I will try to relate my understanding.

For John, it's clear he enjoyed wrestling and thinks it's A Good Thing.
Like I do, John connects goodness with God. Yes, John expresses himself poorly at times... but I find it hilariously funny and thoughtprovoking. Signs of good things for me.
Some people choose to hold John's at times poor expression against John.

Imagine that you've read a beautiful book, movie, or had an activity that touched you, a falling in love of sorts.
When the book, movie or relationship is over we perhaps even cry.. we say goodbye to the people and the story.
All good things...
Will it come back, do the characters in the book exist in some way in an alternate universe? Will we see them again?
Yes, we know it's a play, a book, a script... a beautiful play. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

*IF* Civitate Dei, the New Jerusalem has finaly arrived, will I meet my loved ones there, will there still be the good things we enjoyed and which gave our lives meaning? I don't worry to much about it because I know somewhere that all that is good is preserved as it is indestructable. But this has the suggestion that the good is 'material', a 'something'... it's something more intangible not fixed to it's manifestation imo. That is why I KNOW that those things will be with me/us forever.. even when my form and all forms will pass a way and die.
Panta rei, ouden menei. The World Wide Wrestling.
It's also wrestle part of God like Aya mentioned. This does not mean that all is relative and that Moralman's comment on God's eternal beckoning glory is not true. I see Aya using monism as a argument against christian dualism on page one. Dualism is a part of monism, it's inclusive not exclusive. Moralman, Aya perhaps you'll find Fox's panentheism of interest.

I am not so sure as montalk that passion for narratives and modern day mythology (although perhaps a bit swallow at times from my perspective) can be reduced to something has increasingly little place in the higher realms, although I said something similar. I think the higher stages are *inclusive* of the former, forever a part of you. I have had a similar passion for histrionic conflict and still love it after all these years - perhaps because it reminds me of something eternal, something higher? I haven't outgrown it, but I still think of myself as someone who can watch his emotions more or less objectively and not be swept away by them. Emotion is not something to be only suspicious of.

It can be a small step from bafflement to wonder, being roblocked (see Christine's post) to the blocking of the Mind. The eternal struggle of the Spirit, upward and downward.

I read on this thread that John is not worthy for this forum because his questions are (supposedly) absurd, dumb or out of place. It is exclusive, it's elitist.
It's like someone who says to a child who asks for example "why is the sky blue", "please don't ask such stupid questions!".
That's not a huge assumption, it's clear for the world to see.
If you cannot see it I think you are blind in this respect.
Feel free to interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like... labeling this observation COINTELPRO or evidence of a victim mentality itself.

Such attitudes drive seeking away from this forum, not the simple and innocent questions posed by Moralman. Not that I would care (I a little surprised by your attachment to NR Aya)... the beauty of this and others forums cannot be reduced to it's form or to formalized dogma, truth is dynamic, nor this nor that... shining through temporary forms.

I don't think there is something out of place with this thread.
I understand why people find the topic silly, but it serves a purpose in the grand scheme of things, it does for the person posting the question I presume... so it is important, the thread hasn't finished so you don't know what might come of it. Perhaps you will be surprised and learn something new because of it?

You mentioned John said "Jesus might take up wrestling?", you put words in his mouth.
John never said Jesus might take up wrestling, when asked about it John answered that Jesus would probably aprove as he aproves anything that is good, but will probably not enter the ring himself.
I don't know.

Back to your Freudian slip of the fingers. Perhaps you want to show "which side of things THIS thread".
Taking sides, soapbox others what THIS is...

Reminding me of attitudes in certain circles.

About "Hulk Hogan is the re-incarnation of Jacob?". I am dumbstruck by your suggestion that exploring questions like Hulk Hogan could be the re-incarnation of Jacob is not appropriate on this forum.
As always my bags are packed.
I don't particulary care for Mr. Hogan but I personally do find the Jacob Jabbok story one of the most intruiging of the Bible and why not explore the theological, philosophical and mythological relationship between Christ, Jacob and modern day icons? I think Jacob's and Christ's wrestles can be right in tune with the Matrix trilogy or the quest for truth.
I feel an itch to start a new topic about that! Just joking.

Am I mistaken or do some people really think that there are topics that are not appropriate in and of themselves?
Such as "wrestling beyond 2012".

There is WORRY.
There is ANNOYANCE.
Some find it ABSURD.
Some find it DUMB (beyond words).
Some say John is an IDIOT (benevolent or malevolent?).
Some say it is A PROBLEM.
And some have found a nice sounding label for it: DREAM LOGIC or HISTRIONIC CONFLICT.
Perhaps a label for others to know that it's surely something to TRANSCEND, in the end not apropriate for the subject matter at NR?

Neomatrix, you take pride in freedom of speech, I think all topics are appropriate if only the person shows some basic courtesy, respect and understanding to the parties and subjects involved. For me John shows both more courtesy (he is or wants to be a moral man after all) and more understanding then some others even though his questions could be regarded as silly and even dumb (as John himself acknowledged!).
You say you don't understand Moralman, respect his views and say the topic is absurd. That doesn't make much sense to me. How can you judge something to be fundamentally absurd, while saying you don't understand where John is coming from?

I can only explain it  from your remark on page 1 that you seriously think Moralman is a psyops agent consciously or unconsciously here to disrupt NR. What if Moralman isn't? Wouldn't that be bullying?

I think this thread has a pretty high quality and had from the very start.

I kindly ask you to think twice when you think you speak for others.