Request for active moderation (Page 7 of 8)

I debated posting this, but I suppose I will.  It will probably be my last post regarding this matter, unless new information comes into play, but not my last post in the forum if it is my choice.  I'm not a peace and love type, at least not out loud, but I wish us all here peace and love, sincerely, from my heart.

I think one can take the other route and not be exploited by their negative emotions.  What I disagree with is the definition of malicious intent that is being used here, from what I can gather.  If you think that someone's style is malicious to the style of the forum, that is another matter altogether.  Then I can see your point within a certain context.  I, however, am working off of the assumption that the forum is striving for objectivity, not subjectivity.  I think the two are getting too entangled here, with subjectivity trying to appear as objectivity when it is not, and, if it is admitted that subjectivity cannot be overcome, then it seems more consideration would be given before reacting. 

Also, who is colorblind?  Would a colorblind person realize he was colorblind if almost everybody around him was colorblind?  Who is to say who is colorblind then?  If we agree that red is gray, and we agree to adhere to that, then so be it, but you cannot rightfully say red is gray if we are trying to reach an objective truth.

The assumption is that the one disagreeing is colorblind in the first place.

I think you're pretty easy going, montalk.  I like that you take your time before you make your decisions on the more elusive posters, but I confess that I do wonder why some negativity, such as personal attacks, are not seen as destructive of the integrity of the forum.  Perhaps it is just me, but I always hold the more enlightened types to higher standards.  Otherwise, there's no point in becoming enlightened, in my eyes.

I would say that works both ways.  The issue I am having with this particular argument is that one side is claiming exclusive ownership of the facts and a higher order sense of perception, that they can read between the lines and frame it in an accurate context.  I have to call BS on that one.  What if the entire foundation is wrong?  What is the accurate context?  If it's disruption of the forum, it is the cause of the two mainly conflicting sides.  The elimination or shut down of one side should not be strived for, otherwise we'd never progress, and who is to say which side is correct?  The option would be for preference, not objectivity.

This goes both ways.  Who is perceiving superficially?  How do you know which context I am using?  How can you be sure you are not rejecting arguments from those who are good at heart and not sitting in the laps of those who validate your own insecurities?  The deeper level context/intent is only perceived or taken for granted, not verified.  I am troubled that perception is enough to be taken as verification, in many regards here, as license to call for moderating somebody else.  Perhaps I fail to see how this route leads to enlightenment.  That we trust our perception so blindly is enough of a concern, but even more of a concern is how we react to those perceptions, especially when we react very negatively.  As "Insider" said at that other forum, it is funny how those who claim good and light are so negative.  How is this reconciled?  By saying that one has enough wisdom to intuit what a peer's intentions are, therefore displaying traits of the "enemy" is acceptable?

Which is the honest man, and which is the liar?  If the honest man is talking about seeing a lizard with wings, and the liar says that there was no lizard with wings, then the context is within what is known by the judge.  In this society, the honest man would be considered the liar.  Who has the distorted filter?  I agree that this works as a guideline, but not as an indication of what is true and what is a lie.

A clan would comprise all those clusters.  The clan, singular, is those who are members of NR who post.  You will see clannish behavior here.  The more outspoken ones ("leaders") take it upon themselves to decide who is beneficial for the growth of the clan, while those who are not as welcome into the inner core (dissenters) are accused of lack of leadership capabilities or worthwhile contribution to the spreading and maintenance of resources.  The resources here are intellectual and emotional, as well as the actual forum.  You hold the main resource, montalk.  Who would honestly speak their disagreement with you?  Is it coincidence that the majority agree with you, or is it motivated agreement?  Why the deference?  Only somebody that feels that they have resources that you desire or values something greater than the clan would challenge you.  How does one establish beta position?  Establishing closer affiliation with the alpha male and establishing a pecking order, seeking to put those who are of most threat, real or imagined, low enough on the pecking order that it would take a lot more energy to scale that pecking order to be enough of a challenge to the prime positions.  Friendships are formed on mutual interest, but cemented on the basis of support when threatened, to either gain support or ensure neutrality.  The payoff for the silent one is a continued spot of activity within the clan.  The way to tell a friendship's worth is to see what happens when there is a threat.  Support, or neutrality?  Friends rarely dissent, even when they want to, and if they do, the bond is called into question.  I could be wrong, but this behavior could be seen as instinctual/clannish, hence the accusation.  You know, "functionally".

Again, who is oblivious to effect and blind to intent?  Why the leads?  Which context is being used?  The microcosm or the macrocosm?  Could I not say that you are blind to effect and intent within my context?  Why?  Because you can't see an adequate reason why the decision was made to dissent, but which in some cases is more reflective of your limited perception?

Regarding the other things in the quote, if working within certain guidelines, yes, but not as objective truth.  Action is easy, effect can be managed, and intent cannot truthfully be discerned with 100% accuracy.  If intent is hardest to see, then who is correctly seeing it?  This is where guidelines serve, but not always beneficially.  They merely conserve and preserve, which, if that is the aim, then I am in agreement with the attitudes of those implying "moderation".  I assumed something different.

As for the banning, I posted to morningsun clarifying my position.

Okay, what is malice?  Who decides what is malice?  What is the aim of this forum, and what would serve as malicious intent against this aim?  Perhaps that would clarify a lot in this argument. 

I said this because one's striving for peaceful existence does not indicate whether one is blind or a victim, because there may be a higher or more noble purpose being fulfilled there.  Is Jesus wrong because he was he didn't argue a condemned judgment from the beginning and was then crucified, or was that a stumbling block placed there for the more enlightened ones to reconcile?  Is the fact that he didn't become a political messiah, taking up arms and forcing the Romans out of Israel an indication that he wasn't the messiah, objectively?  Could it be that there was a higher context that the majority failed to see?  To take the example of being a doormat if one is too good, another could see that arousing anger is manipulation by the one that is doing the antagonizing, which the reaction of anger would be considered being a doormat.  One cannot state that another is anything based on their actions alone.  The higher context must be applied, but we usually don't have the higher context to apply things to.

The moneychanger story is along the lines of the crucifixion.  They both convey forsaking the physical in favor of the spiritual in a passionate manner, so I can't really say that the context is agreed upon here.  I feel there is a consistency regarding those actions.  And who are the moneychangers?  Who was right, Jesus or the moneychangers?  What was Jesus' intent, and what was the intent of the moneychangers?  Was it established as acceptable what these moneychangers were doing, and, if so, was it actually acceptable or not within a higher truth?

I wouldn't say they are empty accusations, because everybody is working off of limited perceptions.  You're working off of the assumption that the conclusion arrived to is the correct conclusion in the end, or that you're working within the proper context.  If the aim here was to be conservative, then that is accomplished, but not the truth.  One must always allow for the possibility of being wrong in order to be designated a thinking human being.  And can't one claim another is being subjective in their evidence and observations to the contrary of their subjectivity?  Then who is being subjective, and who is objective?  Isn't compromise the solution when the level of argument reaches this point, or is one of us to claim omniscience over a peer?  In this context, I'd say explanation, discussion, and a level playing field is more appropriate before a banishment takes place if the intent is the closest approximation to truth.

I feel that this is another leading statement and to counter it would be to accept its logic as true.  I honestly don't see that exposing the flaws in another's irrationality gets one accused of not respecting the opinion of another and for being a bully.  What gets done is an argument or discussion.  I think being personally negative and clamoring for moderation as a result of a neutral or non-inflammatory post (unless one is to mysteriously divine intent, which should never be completely accepted but met with skepticism) is the only "whining" being done here.  One cannot say they are not as responsible from any altercation resulting from mere posts.  In fact, the effect is sometimes more responsible than the action for the problem.  Throwing gasoline on a fire is not the fire's fault.  We, as self-stylized more enlightened beings, are actually more responsible than "mere mortals" regarding our attitudes and reactions.

I suppose the context is different for different people.  If the majority agrees that something is venomous, it does not make it so in a broader context.  What if the majority finds something that is actually beneficial as venemous?  Bacteria would consider medicine venemous, but the body would not.  A pole shift would be seen as venemous to the whole of humanity, but not those fervently hoping for it.  Perhaps we are disagreeing on the context.  I could certainly accuse the post I'm countering as deceptively leading the less subtle to form conclusions on who or what is right and wrong in this argument by the mere choice of words and structure, which I think was Energy's point in the MOD thread.

But the Clan of the Friends of Truth will become lazy in their interpretation, or should guard against this laziness by having a contrast.  The king dozes in his throne even as the queen conspires to rule and oppress the kingdom through him, because he has identified his enemies as those outside his court.

Beware common sense in some things, especially in the areas we delve into.

Be careful that path hasn't become a rut, because I'm pretty sure the path of enlightment is so lightly traveled that a rut does not exist.

----------------------------

I suppose this could keep going around until the core was thoroughly convinced I was the subjective and superficial one while those who disagree with me are objective and somehow more knowledgable about objective intent.  I can detect a bit of evidence already of discrediting.  This is where undermining a potential viewpoint by "exposing" the "flaws" in the foundation of its logic, while ignoring its own, starts popping up.  What is being done here is preservation and conservation, not an adherance to the truth.  I think the answer lies in assuming everybody has an element of truth in their views, and that there is more than likely flaws in both sides of the argument.

-----------------------------

I suppose I'd better answer this at least once, or the "proof" will be in the silence.

Better yet, let's all be honest and admit who had the urge to have Energy banned.  If there is nobody, then I'll admit I'm wrong.  Please be honest.  If people can claim discerning intent, then I claim it, too.

Thing is, I provided an example of you skewing something I said after you accused me of skewing what you say, as if that was grounds for looking down on me.  Does that mean people here should look down on you for doing the very same thing?

Where's your evidence that you aren't a Christian hater?  Can you contrast that with the posts where you appear to be one that are after the date I joined, in this forum?  Can you gather all posts where you mention Christianity that are not modified or posted after the MOD thread to see where the impression came from?  I was explaining why I responded to your posts regarding Christianity, from my perception.  Perhaps I should change "always" to "overwhelmingly" in that sentence, then.  How does it go?  "When you lack a good argument, you start attacking semantics."

Doesn't turning

into

concern you at all?  Doesn't it call into question how you perceive reality, through your filter?  Doesn't it make you wonder what else you have twisted?  Is there anything that isn't suspect?  Forget about me for a second and just think about it.  That's a pretty big statement about another person that uses an inflammatory and ridiculous statement.  Why use that language, why present something that is obviously false and something that sounds a little nuts when the actual quote actually sounds reasonable?  Again, think about it.

"If the question doesn't get answered then I can only assume that there just may not be actual support to back the claim....."

But does silence indicate lack of proof?  Does refraining from eating something that you don't like indicate lack of hunger?  Does abstaining from sex indicate a lack of a sex drive?  Only if you want to see it that way, or have others see it that way.

------------------------

I honestly don't want to debate these issues anymore.  It takes up too much time and energy for me.  Whatever somebody feels that says about me, then so be it.  I'd rather get back to delving into our collective spirituality in other aspects of life.