Random Messages
-
@Pattana Gita said
"
I am not an exception to the rule! The rule is bullshit!
"Fair enough. Perhaps I haven't met enough women like you to show me otherwise(which doesn't surprise me, being raised in the American suburbs). I'm only forming this on the data I've thus far collected, and that data makes you look like quite the anomaly. I mean that as a compliment!
-
@Pattana Gita said
"Well I think if you look again at the data with a critical eye (not just assuming) you'll find that women have been doing more than passively receiving throughout history, just as men have been doing more than sending."
I totally agree!
Of course, since "men never listen to women," it's clear women have never been communicating anything, right?
-
@Pattana Gita said
"
Well I think if you look again at the data with a critical eye (not just assuming) you'll find that women have been doing more than passively receiving throughout history, just as men have been doing more than sending."If you look at my first post on this thread, you'll see that I understand that. There's just a natural tendency in either direction among the masses. It takes a conscious breaking of the pattern.
@Pattana Gita said
" We all have an ida and a pingala. Sexually - a man's balls are a first stage womb - a man womb that a woman can send to. All those beautiful and innocent homonculi are just waiting for you to stir them into life. More women should be aware of this instead of just doing it naturally on autopilot. Have some intent and some love and will brought to the matter!
"That's the key! It's SO rare to find women that are aware of that! You're honestly the first I've had interactions with that is(gonna fix this, if it's the death of me!), and I've nearly driven myself mad in the past desperately trying to get the girls in my life to see that part of themselves and engage in a relationship with more intent and love and will, but at first it honestly scares them(in my experience). It takes so much digging to undo all of the conditioning put into them by parents and school and practically everything else; it never even crossed their minds that they didn't have to serve. At least here, specifically where I grew up, it's much tougher for them to find their individuality--there's much more of a violent reaction against it.
-
Most men have a BIG womb or vessel inside their anus. It´s not necessary to link a video, if you think in fist fuking the thing gets clear.
-
Ha! Good point. I restricted my view. Tibet, it goes both ways(though I've seen more women in the position than otherwise). Siberia, I don't know. I suppose anyone can take Amanita Muscaria.
And with genius... When I speak of broad patterns, I speak of the masses, not the rare gems. They are a Law unto themselves and defy declarative statements. The hope is that we'll eventually reach the point where all have access to their own higher genius, but that's just not the case right now.
-
93,
While I get we all can benifit from sharpening our communication skills and writing ability, I also think we could pick our battles better.
It seems easy for scholars to pick apart minute details of some particular post finding fault. However, is it worth it in every case??
I honestly am disappointed in how many can shake a finger at and lecture someone who was obviously making an innocent comment. I just feel that milkbox didn't warrent the type of reaction he got. We should be more tolerant of speach unless its required. To go around picking apart posts, finding problems with the way someone happens to phrase something, and jumping on them is silly.
This accomplishes what? It diverts the thread for one, second its obvious there wasn't any malicious intent etc., and so you repay someone for interacting by making them feel bad. Third, it generates hostility, and bad feelings between us, and why would we want that among fellow spiritual seekers? Shouldn't we be trying to foster unity? Bashing one with insults and or what not over an obvious mistake is just childish in my opinion.
Jim, while I totally get where your coming from, and your points, it seems unfair to not also give a lecture to those who seem to bully for no real good reason. Right? Sure you can explain how "technically" a statement is "sexist" but why not teach others to descriminate what was intentional and warrenting tolerance?
I for one an discouraged from posting by this. I'm no scholar, and not as articulate as many if you. If you think bashing me (and others) for some unseen angle is going to replace a college degree your wrong. It makes one weary of posting, second guessing every word, and so stressfull and tedious. I say correct someone if you must, but choose YOUR words better in terms of tact and respect!
After all, there's more to harm others than mistaken sexist remarks, there are feelings at stake, and the potential loss of good intentioned participation here with this sort of scholarly big brother.
Again, I'm sorry Milkbox, I feel bad because you responded to my thread and were caught up in this "trip-wire" nonesense.
93 93/93
J -
J.L.,
First, I appreciate the feedback. I take in all such feedback about the forum and how people experience it and, even if it doesn't have an immediate effect, it gradually informs my decisions over time.
@J L Romer said
"I honestly am disappointed in how many can shake a finger at and lecture someone who was obviously making an innocent comment. I just feel that milkbox didn't warrent the type of reaction he got. We should be more tolerant of speach unless its required. To go around picking apart posts, finding problems with the way someone happens to phrase something, and jumping on them is silly. "
I agree that he had an innocent intent. I disagree that it was an innocent (or harmless) post. His remarks reinforced some of the cultural attitudes that are very hurtful in our society I'm not sure that there is a more important single issue, in the unfolding of Thelema, than the dismantling of sexism - if for no other reason than that it is the primary cultural legacy of the Osiris Aeon that we carry around with us throughout our day. On this issue, if someone isn't actively a part of the solution, then they're part of the problem.
My effort was to distinguish opinions about milkbox himself from opinions about what he said and how he said it.
"This accomplishes what?"
See above.
"It diverts the thread for one, second its obvious there wasn't any malicious intent etc., and so you repay someone for interacting by making them feel bad."
My honest view is that if he feels bad from candid feedback on how he is coming across, then that's something for him to work on. He has much to gain by incorporating just that type of feedback.
"Third, it generates hostility, and bad feelings between us, and why would we want that among fellow spiritual seekers? Shouldn't we be trying to foster unity? Bashing one with insults and or what not over an obvious mistake is just childish in my opinion."
I agree with your motive, and most of the time agree with the method. However, despite his innocent (naive, ignorant, inattentive, sloppy) intent, I think it was his post that carried the hostile colntent, and that needed to be confronted.
"Jim, while I totally get where your coming from, and your points, it seems unfair to not also give a lecture to those who seem to bully for no real good reason."
Anyone with a habit of that gets attention from me. (Some of them are still around and will be able to confirm that.)
"Sure you can explain how "technically" a statement is "sexist" but why not teach others to descriminate what was intentional and warrenting tolerance?"
Because eradicating sexism is a far bigger issue. - BTW, you may have missed that I was talking to others on this thread, but I was doing it by modelling a wider approach. They didn't need a lecture, they needed an example. (And the people I have in mind have shown, in the past, the ability to pick up on that sort of thing and get back into their freeway lane. Milkbox, on the other hand, has never particularly shown an ability to take input and make changes from it, so I felt I needed to speak directly.)
"I for one an discouraged from posting by this. I'm no scholar, and not as articulate as many if you. If you think bashing me (and others) for some unseen angle is going to replace a college degree your wrong. It makes one weary of posting, second guessing every word, and so stressfull and tedious. I say correct someone if you must, but choose YOUR words better in terms of tact and respect! "
Didn't I? I thought my post showed total respect for the person. Not the ideas, not the word choices, but for the person. The words simply had to be knocked down and demolished - they could not be allowed to stand unchallenged. But, even better, is to give someone the opportunity to learn from the experience and approach their communication better in the future.
"After all, there's more to harm others than mistaken sexist remarks, there are feelings at stake, and the potential loss of good intentioned participation here with this sort of scholarly big brother."
I appreciate the feedback. We don't agree on all things (and that's fine with me).
-
Sorry Jim, I was directing the disrespect comment etc, at the others not you. You were respectful, I just feel that others could approach it with more respect and tact. I think the point would get across better (from them initially) with a respectful tone.
I do think he apologized in a way by trying to clarify. If he was mistaken, not seeing the technical aspect, I don't see how others can be angry and judgmental. Even IF technically sexist was it that big of an offence in terms of sexism? Really?
Im not taking fault with you here, as much as I do with others being just unjustly disrespectful. I certainly wouldn't want to be attacked like this, especially if I meant well. IDK, maybe its just me. Maybe I just don't get it.
93 93/93
J -
@J L Romer said
"If he was mistaken, not seeing the technical aspect, I don't see how others can be angry and judgmental."
Well.. that's human nature. And sometimes it is ameliorated by a friendly response of, "Oh, my, that was a bit judgmental, don't you think?"
"Even IF technically sexist was it that big of an offence in terms of sexism? Really? "
It could have been much worse, agreed. I was more concerned about his resistance to the feedback than to the original statement. (Notice that I didn't enter into the matter until it hit that point.)' His recurrent entrenchment behind "This is my experience!" is simply rigidity that would keep him from seeing the consequences of his actions. There was an opportunity of a teaching moment presented.
"IDK, maybe its just me. Maybe I just don't get it. "
Probably
I want to create and maintain an environment here that is welcoming, and that encourages participation. I'm doing that in the midst of a culture of people that value direct confrontation. This works when it is spirited and good-hearted, and the target is open to receiving the feedback.
-
@J L Romer said
"Can one get messages from random people? I've had a few of these sorts of random "messages" from total strangers, and I wonder if these are common. I realize we give meaning to things, yet it seems some events are just TOO "perfect"."
There's actually a word for this. In Pythagoras: His life and Teachings Thomas Stanley notes that Pythagoras practiced divination by "Cledons," which he defines as
" observations of occurrent speeches, collecting from what is accidentally said upon some other occasion, the effect of what is sought." -
A dose of "reality" for your experience:
The "mentally deranged", or more like "higher parts of their minds are open but the paths that lead their are not all open like they should be, making me jump at ideas", are used as Jim described, and here's my take on your situation.
They see "spirits" of dead animals, trees, and people very easily, among other things. The man might have been spotting the soul of a dead fish above the water, maybe trying to see what life is like above water, or further still, was witnessing the soul of a dead fish before the waters receded from the great flood. Souls that fail to "cross over" past the light of reincarnation, (the great and blinding Light of procreation, where the sperm is flashed alive in the sack and where the egg first becomes self-aware secretly without the sperm,) tend to get lost in their old realms, doing what they used to despite the changes to our connected realities.
Very deep shit to say the least. Especially since the floods receded way before the new Aeon. However, this would have been in the Aeon of Isis, connecting femeninity to the fish and the ocean, maybe trying to relate both dead Aeons to one another. ??
Frankie
93
93/93 -
@ThelemicMage said
"A dose of "reality" for your experience:
The "mentally deranged", or more like "higher parts of their minds are open but the paths that lead their are not all open like they should be, making me jump at ideas", are used as Jim described, and here's my take on your situation.
They see "spirits" of dead animals, trees, and people very easily, among other things. The man might have been spotting the soul of a dead fish above the water, maybe trying to see what life is like above water, or further still, was witnessing the soul of a dead fish before the waters receded from the great flood. Souls that fail to "cross over" past the light of reincarnation, (the great and blinding Light of procreation, where the sperm is flashed alive in the sack and where the egg first becomes self-aware secretly without the sperm,) tend to get lost in their old realms, doing what they used to despite the changes to our connected realities.
Very deep (****) to say the least. Especially since the floods receded way before the new Aeon. However, this would have been in the Aeon of Isis, connecting femeninity to the fish and the ocean, maybe trying to relate both dead Aeons to one another. ??"
93 Frankie,
Interesting. Yes, I suppose its really the context which we pull these meanings out of that are important. Since I had been searching for an answer relating to the new aeon or old, it gave meaning to it instantly (for me).
P.s. never thought of ghosts of animals etc. (!)
93 93/93
J -
My actual opinion is quite the opposite. Most people tend to hear the term, "SEXISM" and identify it with the colloquial terminology of one sex being greater than the other in some regard. Then it was used against me in the context of bigotry, then it transformed into the literal translation that "SEXISM" itself is not technically about being lesser or greater, but by differentiation in any context between the sexes. As for my perceptions and any preconceived notions I may have had at the time, frankly, nobody on here knows me. Nobody knows how I view the sexes, but I can't speak of it frankly? How are we to make progress if we can't stop pretending that even history itself has shown evidence that women do in fact have a tendency towards this principle (If it's a taboo to discuss or "Cross the line" doesn't that concern you more than the offense itself?". I could understand if someone were offended by me merely saying something like "That's all they are good for". In my view, you are only set for inititiation if you have the mental and spiritual strength and will to climb high enough for the truth, even if that truth can be sorrow. Whether male or female it can be done. Albeit, no one here really knows the feminine path as well as some because ironically most of the people commenting on my post are men! One point i should make, is that I do believe I may have had an encounter with my HGA (I'm not sure if this was in the astral or not) but it was leading me through alot of traumatizing childhood experiences. The angel had a very petite frame and was beautiful and female, almost enough to drop everything you have an propose right there lol. The funny thing is that at the end of the dream the angel did something odd and amazing it stood in front of me and it's heart turned to a bright golden light and shot out to mine and in a sense connected to mine. It was a sexual union but more pure and loving. I remember waking up almost in tears it was that blissful, I kept it to myself and my wife decides to tell me she had a dream that I was with another woman outside a church and I told her that I had to marry her and she didn't understand. When my wife got mad strangely the Angel got pissed and said she would harm her if she tried to interfere. I didn't say anything, but since this is unique to the individual perhaps a female HGA will communicate more with feminine archetypes, I dunno.