What seems to offend you so badly is that I think I understand a few things. On the one hand you agree that I’m right and on the other you state that I’m wrong because I think I’m right.
Is that so that you can be right and nobody else? Find a place where you can stand and push the others out?
The defensive attitude that you’re saying I have was very clear in my first participation on the fofblog and I already apologized for it but you’re not willing to take the apology, you want to rub it down on me with the same attitude which makes you no different now to what I was then. Aggression is the natural response of people who are very hurt. It’s been you who’ve been very aggressive since I went back to the blog, not me Ton.
Your acupuncture can’t work because you have nothing good to hold your patient with, which makes you a lousy doctor. You can’t even inspire trust. The first thing a doctor has to know and acknowledge is what is healthy in the patient and not try to convince the patient that she’s got a deadly cancer and no cure no matter how much she shows him where there are healthy areas.
Since you’re unable to share anything positive about yourself or life or my self with me, I find you simply destructive and am not interested in getting another appointment with you. Could you find some other patient if any are willing to pay you? Is it because no one is willing to pay you that you’re coming here for free and abusing someone you think is vulnerable?
Just to take a good look at yourself, why don’t you answer to some of the questions posed here:
2nd post:
15. Elena – April 3, 2010
Hi Nigel, good to see you are well. I think it’s been about five months!
In another chapter of the book I’m trying to write, I state that the Fourth Way as presented by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky is essentially no different to other cults including the Christian religions.
15. Elena – April 3, 2010
Hi Nigel, good to see you are well. I think it’s been about five months!
In another chapter of the book I’m trying to write, I state that the Fourth Way as presented by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky is essentially no different to other cults including the Christian religions.
In all of them there are a few basic premises such as a human and a divine realm, the relationship of the human to the divine and vice-versa, how the human can reach the divine through particular behavior and the relationship from human to human. It is no coincidence that the Fourth Way is presented as esoteric Christianity for in essence it adopts the same basic tenets.
I argue that the differences between the problems we face today are no different to those posed to people in Martin Luther’s time. What has changed is the number of people able to participate in the social processes due to democratic realities. The simple fact that more people are able to participate economically, socially and culturally and that the power relations between them is not as strongly tied to a unique hierarchic structure, gives room for not only greater freedom but also much more abuse. As the power of the king and the pope declines, we see the phenomenon of dictators and gurus trying to replace them each with their own particular agenda on what is right for the people. People remain, what changes is the relations between them.
What we also see is that in all times, the relations between people are tied to their relationship to the “goods” they share. Economic, cultural and social “goods” and how those goods are distributed is what determine the relationships between them as much as how each feels about his or herself.
The social, economic and political milieu in which an individual grows up, determines the way they will develop no differently than nature determines the way an animal behaves. Nature is to an animal what culture is to a man. They belong to each other as the dot to the line or the center to the periphery.
One of the great realities that the cult phenomenon is revealing is that the milieu to which people are submitted has the power to enslave them more deeply or free them more expansively in very short periods of time. We can see that the “milieu” has the capacity to lead people to massive suicide in periods no longer than weeks, months or years. Weeks in the internet mass suicides of Japan and years in the twenty-thirty year process of the People’s Temple (Jonestown). It would be very interesting to look closely at the social structures proper of Japan to understand the ingredients for the suicides. In my superficial knowledge of it, the impression is that it has been a very strict, formal society that has promoted suicide as a viable resolution to failure to act with honor in people of high rank but that has developed in modern times into very young people “joyfully” committing suicide because they deem themselves a failure before they even have or give themselves a serious opportunity to try. Statistics show that there are around 100 suicides per day in Japan. How what was once an “honorable solution” has turned inside out and against its own people, is something to look deeply into. It is as if the young Japanese today, were trying to tell their community that it has failed to honor them but instead of fighting against it, they sacrifice themselves to it and maintain it’s honor.
It is also interesting to look at how members of society are solving similar difficulties in western countries where teenagers are simply taking firearms and shooting at whoever got and gets in their way. They are both equivalent responses to different “milieus” and are both a profound scream for help from the younger generation to the older generation. Hopefully we will not take too much time to hear it. (end of post)
Then of everything that Elena has been saying, Ton picks up in post 31, one and only aspect that says “We are One” and instead of addressing Elena on his own words and trying to encompass everything she’s trying to explore, he uses a text that presents the idea that those who stand of We are One, stand against individuality.
What is interesting about Ton’s response is that it completely disacknowledges the fact that what Elena has been precisely pointing out is that people in cults adopt a mass behavior, completely annihilate their own individuality and end up committing suicide. So Ton not only neglects to acknowledge what Elena is saying, he picks up one tiny statement within the whole three long posts and presents it as a theory that goes against individuality.
31. ton – April 6, 2010
19 “We are One!”
“The oneness doctrine appeals to modern westerners because it seems less authoritarian and easier to reconcile with science than western theologies, but it is riddled with contradictions. It takes an individual, after all, to experience oneness; moreover, the concept of oneness has within it a hidden duality that leads to a hierarchical division of reality. Oneness ideologies denigrate individuality as illusory and self-interest as sinful, the source of all suffering and evil.
19 “We are One!”
“The oneness doctrine appeals to modern westerners because it seems less authoritarian and easier to reconcile with science than western theologies, but it is riddled with contradictions. It takes an individual, after all, to experience oneness; moreover, the concept of oneness has within it a hidden duality that leads to a hierarchical division of reality. Oneness ideologies denigrate individuality as illusory and self-interest as sinful, the source of all suffering and evil.
Buddhism and Hinduism in particular postulate the existence of certain rare beings who have transcended their individuality and thus experience oneness in a deep and abiding fashion. These are the enlightened ones, gurus, masters, sages, avatars.
The very nature of any structure that makes one person superior to others breeds authoritarianism, indeed, gurus are the ultimate authority figures. The guru insists that the path to enlightenment comes through surrender to him. The guru claims that those who devote themselves to him will be rewarded with bliss, self-knowledge, immortality, states that are conveniently as difficult to reach as they are compelling. The guru projects an air of absolute certainty not only about his enlightenment but about almost all matters. When criticized, the guru accuses the critic of being mired in illusion and egotism, which the guru, of course, has transcended.
Both as individuals and as a species, we face real-world problems, some of which threaten our very existence. Spirituality can help motivate us to address these problems by boosting our empathy for our fellow humans and for all of life. But spirituality should incorporate reason as well as emotion and intuition, and it should be embedded in daily life, not separate from it.”
——————————————————–
23
“Sceptic challenges guru to kill him live on TV….
Since richer, urban Indians have little time for long pilgrimages or pujas (prayer ceremonies), they are often attracted by holy men who offer instant gratification — for a fee.”http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=10282(end of post)
Both as individuals and as a species, we face real-world problems, some of which threaten our very existence. Spirituality can help motivate us to address these problems by boosting our empathy for our fellow humans and for all of life. But spirituality should incorporate reason as well as emotion and intuition, and it should be embedded in daily life, not separate from it.”
——————————————————–
23
“Sceptic challenges guru to kill him live on TV….
Since richer, urban Indians have little time for long pilgrimages or pujas (prayer ceremonies), they are often attracted by holy men who offer instant gratification — for a fee.”http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=10282(end of post)
This is an important post because it in fact holds the ingredients to most of what Ton then continues to expand on in the rest of the posts both in the fofblog and in this one here. He assumes in this post that the statement “We are One” is used against individuality and then presents the notion that those gurus who present it are in themselves authoritarian figures using their status to submit followers.
This is very interesting for me. For while I agree with everything that is said here I don’t agree with the idea that a true enlightened being would state that We are One to submit another person’s authority. But let’s look at what actually happened then.
Elena was definitely feeling questioned but she presents us with the following post:
32. Elena – April 6, 2010
Hello Ton,
What an elegant way of questioning a statement.
Hello Ton,
What an elegant way of questioning a statement.
The idea of We are One or All is One I believe, has been experienced by Westerners of our times when they are tripping on drugs, when an afternoon is too awesome to avoid it or when making love, the whole cosmos participates as much as when they sit peacefully with each other and listen to music, talk things over or cuddle around their children. Such experiences include the kind of Oneness that I am talking about. In addition I believe children are naturally closer to the experience of Oneness; that we all know what it tastes like when we remember ourselves as children for children are not born with the deformed perception of the world that comes with separatist concepts and behavior present in classicism, academicism, “groupalism”, racism and nationalism. Humanism as a doctrine would tend to become as “separationist” as any of those isms and maybe that is its destiny, but Humanism as an inner reality of the individual as much as a social practice amongst communities would tend to make Oneness a reality when, beyond our religious beliefs and nationalities, we begin to share in the life of this Earth as Human Beings.
I believe people already have experiences of Oneness in our lives without having ever tried to have it and that the experience of that Oneness is powerfully expressed in the integrity of people still connected to nature and their nature. The pathologic disconnectedness to our selves and others seems to have come with the industrial revolution and particularly the human misery that came with such process in which the whole purpose of “work” and “life” became “economic survival”. Alcoholism in Russia, drugs in the States and Europe and suicide in Japan could be better understood if we realize the extent to which people’s lives no longer matter in those societies, what matters, like in the Fellowship cult, is how much is you are worth, how much do you produce? And then by standardizing that amount that people produce with an average wage, that production becomes a massive phenomenon in which individuals have no meaning and their place in society is just a number: an “employee”. That is deadly for the soul and culture of the human being as an individual as much as a community. People are so uninspired in these societies that we get phenomenon like the 23 suicides of the telecom company in France in the past two years, many actually leaving letters stating that they cannot bear the work environment. The corporate world has become a cult of its own.
So as not to extend too much here, let me conclude saying that the experience of Oneness as I am understanding it today, is “life-giving” and we actualize it by the “spirit” within our “acts”. Everything a person does separates or unites him with the rest of the world. Pathological separation leads to destruction in a process of crime. Most people live consciously or unconsciously uniting and separating with the rest of the world. Cults are unconsciously separating from the rest of the world until they suffocate in their pathologic individualism. No matter how “humanistic” their ideals, their practices are anti-humanistic and that makes them implode rather than evolve! Healthy communities allow for healthy union between their individuals and healthy individuals promote healthy communities. These promote culture: a life giving force from the community to the individuals and from the individuals to the community in a dialectic embrace. “The” Culture in which the individual grows up and participates inspires his work and his work inspires his culture or hers! Where there is no culture there is no inspiration, where there is no inspiration, there is no spirit, where there is no spirit, people enter a process of crime. Inspiration cannot live in dogmatism, the greatest challenge Humanists would face, is not to allow Humanism to become a doctrine. (end of post)
Elena then gets some understanding from other posters and Ton presents us with the following:
38. ton – April 6, 2010
32 Elena
“….the greatest challenge Humanists would face, is not to allow Humanism to become a doctrine.”
if it has “ism” or “ist” as a suffix,
it ALREADY IS “a doctrine.”
i’m reminded of this:
“In a way ideologies are drug fixes, because they fix some certain kind of mental disequilibrium. You just give yourself a shot of Marxism or Hegelian idealism and say, ‘Oh, that makes the pain go away!’ ” terrence mckenna
33 Thot — John Horgan (Rational Mysticism)(end of post)
32 Elena
“….the greatest challenge Humanists would face, is not to allow Humanism to become a doctrine.”
if it has “ism” or “ist” as a suffix,
it ALREADY IS “a doctrine.”
i’m reminded of this:
“In a way ideologies are drug fixes, because they fix some certain kind of mental disequilibrium. You just give yourself a shot of Marxism or Hegelian idealism and say, ‘Oh, that makes the pain go away!’ ” terrence mckenna
33 Thot — John Horgan (Rational Mysticism)(end of post)
In this post, Ton misinterprets what Elena is saying and presents it as the opposite of what she’s saying:
Elena: Humanism as a doctrine would tend to become as “separationist” as any of those isms and maybe that is its destiny, but Humanism as an inner reality of the individual as much as a social practice amongst communities would tend to make Oneness a reality when, beyond our religious beliefs and nationalities, we begin to share in the life of this Earth as Human Beings.
“….the greatest challenge Humanists would face, is not to allow Humanism to become a doctrine.”
________
________
This is very significant because Ton’s mechanism begins to become obvious. No matter what Elena says, he’ll turn it around and use it against her. He’ll do this in various ways:
One, by literally misunderstanding, misinterpreting and misreconstructing what Elena says.
Here it is very obvious particularly because others understood what Elena was saying but Ton didn’t.
Here it is very obvious particularly because others understood what Elena was saying but Ton didn’t.
Two, by picking one sentence and ignoring all the rest. One sentence that he’ll use to deconstruct not only what Elena is saying but Elena herself and this is where we enter crime. When in a conversation one of the participants rises against the individuality of another participant and tries to subvert his or her being with personal attacks while moving away from the specific points of discussion.
In this post, Ton’s tone already begins to rise and he uses mckennas quote to pinpoint a so called mental disequilibrium which is extremely significant for Ton will raise this issue in subsequent posts implying that Elena is mentally ill. This is extremely significant because Ton introduces a subject that was one of the supposed reasons for banning Elena and the same and only subject he took up in Elena’s blog. Is he really interested in questioning Elena’s mental health rather than discussing the theories Elena is presenting?
It is worth noting that Ton will consistently quote other people to present such attacks or questionings and not speak from his own self avoiding the direct responsibility and leaving it for interpretation.
Continues…..
Reply
125. Elena – May 17, 2010 [Edit]
Part 2
125. Elena – May 17, 2010 [Edit]
Part 2
So the discussion continues as follows:
39. Elena – April 6, 2010
Hi Ton,
Would you say that reductionism is quite an obstacle too?
40. Elena – April 6, 2010
For you with love!
Hi Ton,
Would you say that reductionism is quite an obstacle too?
40. Elena – April 6, 2010
For you with love!
41. Elena – April 6, 2010
Actually Ton, the observation is very valuable, the problem is hardly ever in the doctrine but in the way it is lived out. We are after all, still trying to be human!
“There is a certain enthusiasm in liberty that makes human nature rise above itself in acts of bravery and heroism” Alexander Hamilton
Actually Ton, the observation is very valuable, the problem is hardly ever in the doctrine but in the way it is lived out. We are after all, still trying to be human!
“There is a certain enthusiasm in liberty that makes human nature rise above itself in acts of bravery and heroism” Alexander Hamilton
_________
Having witnessed Elena’s state at the time, I think I’m authorized to state that she was already very sad and making tremendous effort to keep up with Ton. When she ask Ton if reductionism is not an obstacle, she’s already very tired. She’s been trying to get back on the blog presenting her arguments from the research she’d been doing for six months trying to validate each idea with concrete life examples and everything is put aside by Ton and reduced to one or two quotes taken out of context.
Is Elena mentally ill?
As mentally ill as anyone who’s been under a cult experience for seventeen years could be. Does that justify Ton’s behavior when he is well aware of the circumstances? What do we really have in Ton’s unwillingness to acknowledge any of Elena’s arguments? What is he really trying to do?
What is Elena trying to do?
She’s trying to get back onto a blog and erase the idea that she’s mentally ill by presenting coherent arguments. She’s trying to be with the people that shared with her the cult experience. She’s trying to present new ideas based on concrete research on the problem of cults. She’s trying to be herself in a group that has already violently rejected her once.
She’s trying to get back onto a blog and erase the idea that she’s mentally ill by presenting coherent arguments. She’s trying to be with the people that shared with her the cult experience. She’s trying to present new ideas based on concrete research on the problem of cults. She’s trying to be herself in a group that has already violently rejected her once.
Is Elena trying to impose her points of view and find submissive followers?
She’s certainly trying to present her points of view and arguing on their behalf strongly but she consistently states that they are there for exploration. Trying to find submissive followers would be difficult to affirm because no matter how many times Nigel has tried to submit to her she has consistently questioned him and turned him back on his self.
She’s certainly trying to present her points of view and arguing on their behalf strongly but she consistently states that they are there for exploration. Trying to find submissive followers would be difficult to affirm because no matter how many times Nigel has tried to submit to her she has consistently questioned him and turned him back on his self.
The discussion continues:
42. nige – April 6, 2010
Hey Elena
Why are some of your posts coming up as ‘Adober Readable Only’?…..Nigel
43. Thot Plickens – April 6, 2010
True, humanism is a doctrine. Not to get too involved with translating here, but I think what Elena is suggesting is that one (a.k.a., Juan) can transform humanism into something that’s more than a doctrine.
[I'm not sure that's exactly what she's saying, though.]
But by becoming an actual humanist — not someone who studies it in books or professes to be one — you transcend the doctrine or the idealogy. You become the words.
Doctrines and ideologies are maybe a formalized or structured set of ideas — a set of organized thoughts. That’s good, but if they don’t go beyond that, and if we don’t think about them critically occasionally, maybe the drug analogy is perfect… We not only use them as a drug fix (as TMcK said), but we become addicted to them. And worse yet, the doctrine morphs into something the opposite of what we believed it was right before our eyes — and unfortunately often without us noticing it.
Hey Elena
Why are some of your posts coming up as ‘Adober Readable Only’?…..Nigel
43. Thot Plickens – April 6, 2010
True, humanism is a doctrine. Not to get too involved with translating here, but I think what Elena is suggesting is that one (a.k.a., Juan) can transform humanism into something that’s more than a doctrine.
[I'm not sure that's exactly what she's saying, though.]
But by becoming an actual humanist — not someone who studies it in books or professes to be one — you transcend the doctrine or the idealogy. You become the words.
Doctrines and ideologies are maybe a formalized or structured set of ideas — a set of organized thoughts. That’s good, but if they don’t go beyond that, and if we don’t think about them critically occasionally, maybe the drug analogy is perfect… We not only use them as a drug fix (as TMcK said), but we become addicted to them. And worse yet, the doctrine morphs into something the opposite of what we believed it was right before our eyes — and unfortunately often without us noticing it.
_______________
With this post I was very happy that Thot reaffirmed that he understood what I was actually trying to convey and yet he also takes Ton’s bent on the subject that doctrines can turn against our selves if they become indoctrination. Ton Follows with:
44. ton – April 6, 2010
“…the problem is hardly ever in the doctrine but in the way it is lived out. We are after all, still trying to be human!”
i strongly disagree that “the problem is hardly ever in the doctrine.” where you get all tangled up is in the “trying” – do you imagine that you’ll get it all figured out at some point down the road?
to simply be a human being… imagine that.
“…the problem is hardly ever in the doctrine but in the way it is lived out. We are after all, still trying to be human!”
i strongly disagree that “the problem is hardly ever in the doctrine.” where you get all tangled up is in the “trying” – do you imagine that you’ll get it all figured out at some point down the road?
to simply be a human being… imagine that.
_______________
This is another critical point in the conversation. Elena is trying to get out of it not seeing any positive movement in Ton but Ton is convinced of his position and doesn’t want to let Elena go. His tone here is clearly aggressive:
– do you imagine that you’ll get it all figured out at some point down the road?
to simply be a human being… imagine that.
to simply be a human being… imagine that.
What is so significant about this tone is that he begins to assume a clear position of superiority. He uses Elena’s statement that supports Thot’s reaffirmation of her statements that the challenge is for individuals to not allow for humanism to become a doctrine and in so doing, trying to be more human, to turn it against her and state that her problem is that she’s still trying to be human.
Ton:– do you imagine that you’ll get it all figured out at some point down the road?
to simply be a human being… imagine that.
to simply be a human being… imagine that.
The tone is clearly: stupid, mentally sick Elena who hasn’t figured out that she’s already human and is trying to figure it out still, imagine that, you retarded fool!
But he’s such an expert he leaves it implied but strongly asserts himself as having a position of superiority and Elena an inferior one: Elena can’t figure it out. What can’t Elena figure out? He’ll never tell us. He’ll always simply imply it and sustain his whole argument on the fact that he knows something that Elena doesn’t know but that he is not willing to share it because he is not there to help Elena.
What is he therefore then? What is Ton’s real objective in this whole conversation?
Reply
126. Elena – May 17, 2010 [Edit]
Part 3 Ton-Elena From facts to personal attacks
126. Elena – May 17, 2010 [Edit]
Part 3 Ton-Elena From facts to personal attacks
The following post by Thot Plickens is decisive. He supports Ton by implying that one ideology has been simply replaced by another. He doesn’t deepen the exploration he understood from Elena’s posts as valid, but takes Ton’s road.
57. Thot Plickens – April 7, 2010
ton, I sense you’re concerned that when someone finds one doctrine or ideology that proves to be destructive in some way, and then leaps to yet another doctrine without thinking critically about it, they’re potentially replacing one harmful thing with another?
The root of the word indoctrination does happen to be doctrine.
Sometimes I think a potential antidote to that tendency to be consumed by any one ideology or doctrine — to getting sucked in (sorry for the expression) to any type of group thinking — is to be open to manydoctrines, and to connect to many different groups. (without necessary “joining” them by the way).
But I guess it feels cozy and safe to have one doctrine, one ideology, one group, one leader, one nation, one religion, and to attach ourselves to that. Feels safer, but it’s often not so smart or wise, or in the end even safe at all. Even “non-dualism” becomes “dualistic” if you start approaching it in a certain way. The key is to reflect upon the idea, meditate on it, and take from it what is healthy and wise. Seems best whenever possible to avoid the labels — e.g., I’m a non-dualist, I’m a “student of the Fourth Way”, I’m a Democrat, I’m an American. We already start closing ourselves off from the rest of the world, and start down that path of becoming prone to indoctrination.
Or if I do call myself an American or attach any other label, doctrine, or ideology to myself — at least be able to say that I am also a resident of the world at large.
—
“And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.”
JFK, June 1963http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkamericanuniversityaddress.html
ton, I sense you’re concerned that when someone finds one doctrine or ideology that proves to be destructive in some way, and then leaps to yet another doctrine without thinking critically about it, they’re potentially replacing one harmful thing with another?
The root of the word indoctrination does happen to be doctrine.
Sometimes I think a potential antidote to that tendency to be consumed by any one ideology or doctrine — to getting sucked in (sorry for the expression) to any type of group thinking — is to be open to manydoctrines, and to connect to many different groups. (without necessary “joining” them by the way).
But I guess it feels cozy and safe to have one doctrine, one ideology, one group, one leader, one nation, one religion, and to attach ourselves to that. Feels safer, but it’s often not so smart or wise, or in the end even safe at all. Even “non-dualism” becomes “dualistic” if you start approaching it in a certain way. The key is to reflect upon the idea, meditate on it, and take from it what is healthy and wise. Seems best whenever possible to avoid the labels — e.g., I’m a non-dualist, I’m a “student of the Fourth Way”, I’m a Democrat, I’m an American. We already start closing ourselves off from the rest of the world, and start down that path of becoming prone to indoctrination.
Or if I do call myself an American or attach any other label, doctrine, or ideology to myself — at least be able to say that I am also a resident of the world at large.
—
“And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.”
JFK, June 1963http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkamericanuniversityaddress.html
and Elena continues trying to reach a place of acceptance:
59. Elena – April 7, 2010
Dear Ton who have consistently checked on me and kept biting at my heels in the hope that I will move a different way, I sincerely thank you for your insight on my recent participation.
I am afraid that like you, I also feel that you pick on a little something of everything I am saying and neglect to address the whole idea, which is all right. If that is all you can do here that is what I am willing to take from you. It is clear that I am little more than a sloganeer for you and if that is what I am, please keep repeating it that I might one day see it and that whoever is reading me is three times careful with what they are hearing.
I write what I believe and it is not that I am following a humanist doctrine that I read somewhere as Thot Plickens suggests but that I have come to understand for myself that everything that made and makes me inhuman towards others is based on some kind of imaginary separateness that I justify because they are different to me economically, socially, academically, nationally or racially. When work on my self began I repeatedly observed those things in me and the more I stopped expressing negativity towards others for these totally absurd reasons, the more I understood that behaving “consciously” for me meant behaving humanly. I am still far from being all the human I wish to become so I thank you for pushing me on. I am glad for you if you feel you have already reached such a condition.
It is also very clear to me that most people don’t understand each other because as soon as they meet they catalogue the other person so thoroughly that they either fall into deep identification wishing to attract that person or totally ignoring them. This too I’ve observed in myself.
I sincerely believe that WE, every human being alive today, can behave humanly at least towards a few people and that wars as they are being waged are not only not necessary but criminal. Since this is my belief the least I can do is to not carry out a war with you and the many here as I did before I was banned. We are not here to agree but to talk and listen and help each other and those inside who, some agree, would benefit from not continuing to sacrifice themselves in the Fellowship cult. It is the duty of a nation and every individual inside of it to stop its people from destroying themselves or others, some still try to help individuals who are about to commit suicide, why aren’t we helping those in cults when we know they are on that train? How many more people in cults have to die before laws are passed to control them? Laws that forbid every institution and cult and anyone with no matter what authority to act against people’s human rights? I am afraid we are far from human today and need laws that will protect us from our very powerful inhuman tendencies such as Fascism just half a century ago and the equally fascist activity of Israelis towards Palestinians today. It is a blessing that so many Jews are already acting against the State of Israel.
I am also not here to be attacked personally or attack you personally but to dialogue about our understandings. Before I was banned I was still so emotionally shocked by the cult experience that people who did not agree and support me in everything I said were perceived as people who did not love me and my self steam was so low that I turned very aggressive towards them. I am very sorry that I needed so much protection after the cult experience and did not look for it somewhere else. I am a little less vulnerable today and your agreeing or disagreeing with me is an opportunity for me to reflect on my understanding and continue to hold you because you are simply another human being with as much confusion and pain as I often experience. Where you not, you would have no difficulty being kind and generous. I do not ask you to love me but there is a huge difference between a conversation in which there is love and one in which there isn’t any. There is no love in your tone, no kindness and when there is no kindness, it is very easy to dismiss what is being said because the other person has in fact dismissed one and just picked up the piece of what one said and used it for his own interests. I sincerely do not know what your interest is but I get a feeling that you are not interested in me which is all right. We are not here to focus on my self but on life. We are fortunate to have the right to freedom of speech and do not need to share deep love to be able to practice it. That is what laws are for.
I can understand that I have hurt many of you in my previous participation on this blog. I have already asked you to forgive me but I cannot force you to forgive. We each come to that in our own time.
I also sincerely thank you for questioning my thinking. Let it get buried deep in the ground if there’s nothing worth sprouting in it. It seems to be helping me and I have not lived in vain, so hopefully it can be useful to others. I have actually nowhere found a simple understanding of what being human means for the individual and society “together”. History seems to be crowded with those who dealt with the inner side or the outer side without getting to the fact that they are too sides of the same coin: the human being. Everywhere people seem to agree that it is enough to be human with those one likes and agrees with, but not with those who do not belong to one’s class, race or nation. Humanism as I am understanding it means Humanism: we are all equals as human beings. We all have the same rights and freedoms:
Civil rights include:
Ensuring peoples’ physical integrity and safety.
Protection from discrimination on grounds such as gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, national origin, age, immigrant status, etc.
Equal access to health care, education, culture, etc.
Political rights include:
Natural justice (procedural fairness) in law (such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy)
Individual political freedom, including rights of individuals (freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of movement) and the right to participate in civil society and politics (freedom of association, right to assemble, right to petition, right to vote)
Civil and political rights comprise the first portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social and cultural rights comprising the second portion). The theory of three generations of human rights considers this group of rights to be “first-generation rights”, and the theory of negative and positive rights considers them to be generally negative rights.
We are FAR in the world today from practicing these freedoms and rights and each and every one of these rights is horrifically abused in cults, which is the particular area that we are discussing in this blog.
My aim is to explore humanism as I understand it so deeply that there will be no doubt as to why we human beings cannot continue to allow these very destructive cults to proliferate in our societies. My aim I believe is to a certain extent your aim. May we at least share that portion of the effort even if we only get a third of the way. Others will surely pick up where we left off.
Dear Ton who have consistently checked on me and kept biting at my heels in the hope that I will move a different way, I sincerely thank you for your insight on my recent participation.
I am afraid that like you, I also feel that you pick on a little something of everything I am saying and neglect to address the whole idea, which is all right. If that is all you can do here that is what I am willing to take from you. It is clear that I am little more than a sloganeer for you and if that is what I am, please keep repeating it that I might one day see it and that whoever is reading me is three times careful with what they are hearing.
I write what I believe and it is not that I am following a humanist doctrine that I read somewhere as Thot Plickens suggests but that I have come to understand for myself that everything that made and makes me inhuman towards others is based on some kind of imaginary separateness that I justify because they are different to me economically, socially, academically, nationally or racially. When work on my self began I repeatedly observed those things in me and the more I stopped expressing negativity towards others for these totally absurd reasons, the more I understood that behaving “consciously” for me meant behaving humanly. I am still far from being all the human I wish to become so I thank you for pushing me on. I am glad for you if you feel you have already reached such a condition.
It is also very clear to me that most people don’t understand each other because as soon as they meet they catalogue the other person so thoroughly that they either fall into deep identification wishing to attract that person or totally ignoring them. This too I’ve observed in myself.
I sincerely believe that WE, every human being alive today, can behave humanly at least towards a few people and that wars as they are being waged are not only not necessary but criminal. Since this is my belief the least I can do is to not carry out a war with you and the many here as I did before I was banned. We are not here to agree but to talk and listen and help each other and those inside who, some agree, would benefit from not continuing to sacrifice themselves in the Fellowship cult. It is the duty of a nation and every individual inside of it to stop its people from destroying themselves or others, some still try to help individuals who are about to commit suicide, why aren’t we helping those in cults when we know they are on that train? How many more people in cults have to die before laws are passed to control them? Laws that forbid every institution and cult and anyone with no matter what authority to act against people’s human rights? I am afraid we are far from human today and need laws that will protect us from our very powerful inhuman tendencies such as Fascism just half a century ago and the equally fascist activity of Israelis towards Palestinians today. It is a blessing that so many Jews are already acting against the State of Israel.
I am also not here to be attacked personally or attack you personally but to dialogue about our understandings. Before I was banned I was still so emotionally shocked by the cult experience that people who did not agree and support me in everything I said were perceived as people who did not love me and my self steam was so low that I turned very aggressive towards them. I am very sorry that I needed so much protection after the cult experience and did not look for it somewhere else. I am a little less vulnerable today and your agreeing or disagreeing with me is an opportunity for me to reflect on my understanding and continue to hold you because you are simply another human being with as much confusion and pain as I often experience. Where you not, you would have no difficulty being kind and generous. I do not ask you to love me but there is a huge difference between a conversation in which there is love and one in which there isn’t any. There is no love in your tone, no kindness and when there is no kindness, it is very easy to dismiss what is being said because the other person has in fact dismissed one and just picked up the piece of what one said and used it for his own interests. I sincerely do not know what your interest is but I get a feeling that you are not interested in me which is all right. We are not here to focus on my self but on life. We are fortunate to have the right to freedom of speech and do not need to share deep love to be able to practice it. That is what laws are for.
I can understand that I have hurt many of you in my previous participation on this blog. I have already asked you to forgive me but I cannot force you to forgive. We each come to that in our own time.
I also sincerely thank you for questioning my thinking. Let it get buried deep in the ground if there’s nothing worth sprouting in it. It seems to be helping me and I have not lived in vain, so hopefully it can be useful to others. I have actually nowhere found a simple understanding of what being human means for the individual and society “together”. History seems to be crowded with those who dealt with the inner side or the outer side without getting to the fact that they are too sides of the same coin: the human being. Everywhere people seem to agree that it is enough to be human with those one likes and agrees with, but not with those who do not belong to one’s class, race or nation. Humanism as I am understanding it means Humanism: we are all equals as human beings. We all have the same rights and freedoms:
Civil rights include:
Ensuring peoples’ physical integrity and safety.
Protection from discrimination on grounds such as gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, national origin, age, immigrant status, etc.
Equal access to health care, education, culture, etc.
Political rights include:
Natural justice (procedural fairness) in law (such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy)
Individual political freedom, including rights of individuals (freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of movement) and the right to participate in civil society and politics (freedom of association, right to assemble, right to petition, right to vote)
Civil and political rights comprise the first portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social and cultural rights comprising the second portion). The theory of three generations of human rights considers this group of rights to be “first-generation rights”, and the theory of negative and positive rights considers them to be generally negative rights.
We are FAR in the world today from practicing these freedoms and rights and each and every one of these rights is horrifically abused in cults, which is the particular area that we are discussing in this blog.
My aim is to explore humanism as I understand it so deeply that there will be no doubt as to why we human beings cannot continue to allow these very destructive cults to proliferate in our societies. My aim I believe is to a certain extent your aim. May we at least share that portion of the effort even if we only get a third of the way. Others will surely pick up where we left off.
And Ton continues:
64. ton – April 8, 2010
dear elena,
you don’t like my ‘tone’ eh? i’ve made no personal attacks, believe me, i wish you only well-being.
dear elena,
you don’t like my ‘tone’ eh? i’ve made no personal attacks, believe me, i wish you only well-being.
NOTE: Note that here Ton denies having made a personal attack or assuming a position of superiority in the tone he’s using and states that he wishes Elena’s well being only and continues:
what i have done is to question a few of your assumptions and preconceptions — apparently this rubs you the wrong way. if you are used to the notion that you are always right, and that your opinion counts more, then by now a certain kind of response should be expected…
NOTE: Note the personal attacks. He has in his last post positioned himself in a superior position and is now personally attacking Elena on the supposition that she thinks she is always right.
Where does he get that supposition from? He asserts it but nowhere does he point out where Elena acts as if she were always right. He has moved the conversation from the addressing of concrete ideas to addressing Elena’s persona.
He makes that statement adamantly ignoring Elena’s:
“I am afraid that like you, I also feel that you pick on a little something of everything I am saying and neglect to address the whole idea, which is all right. If that is all you can do here that is what I am willing to take from you. It is clear that I am little more than a sloganeer for you and if that is what I am, please keep repeating it that I might one day see it and that whoever is reading me is three times careful with what they are hearing”
NOTE: Can you hear Elena’s tone? Can you hear what she’s saying? Can you hear her humility? Her humanity?
But Ton continues:
the soap box is no substitute for a little self-reflective analysis so i hope my ‘needling’ can at least give you pause to think. no, you don’t know everything, in fact you know almost nothing if you can’t get past identification with ego and the little self…
NOTE: One. That he reduces everything Elena just said to a soap box
Two. That he again attacks Elena’s “self sphere” implying that she does not even think, that a little self analysis can help her and that she knows almost nothing if she doesn’t go beyond identification with her self
Three. That Ton asserts all these things from his own assumptions not from anything that he has actually taken from Elena
Two. That he again attacks Elena’s “self sphere” implying that she does not even think, that a little self analysis can help her and that she knows almost nothing if she doesn’t go beyond identification with her self
Three. That Ton asserts all these things from his own assumptions not from anything that he has actually taken from Elena
Note that he ignores everything that is said here:
I write what I believe and it is not that I am following a humanist doctrine that I read somewhere as Thot Plickens suggests but that I have come to understand for myself that everything that made and makes me inhuman towards others is based on some kind of imaginary separateness that I justify because they are different to me economically, socially, academically, nationally or racially. When work on my self began I repeatedly observed those things in me and the more I stopped expressing negativity towards others for these totally absurd reasons, the more I understood that behaving “consciously” for me meant behaving humanly. I am still far from being all the human I wish to become so I thank you for pushing me on. I am glad for you if you feel you have already reached such a condition.
It is also very clear to me that most people don’t understand each other because as soon as they meet they catalogue the other person so thoroughly that they either fall into deep identification wishing to attract that person or totally ignoring them. This too I’ve observed in myself.
I sincerely believe that WE, every human being alive today, can behave humanly at least towards a few people and that wars as they are being waged are not only not necessary but criminal. Since this is my belief the least I can do is to not carry out a war with you and the many here as I did before I was banned. We are not here to agree but to talk and listen and help each other and those inside who, some agree, would benefit from not continuing to sacrifice themselves in the Fellowship cult. It is the duty of a nation and every individual inside of it to stop its people from destroying themselves or others, some still try to help individuals who are about to commit suicide, why aren’t we helping those in cults when we know they are on that train? How many more people in cults have to die before laws are passed to control them? Laws that forbid every institution and cult and anyone with no matter what authority to act against people’s human rights? I am afraid we are far from human today and need laws that will protect us from our very powerful inhuman tendencies such as Fascism just half a century ago and the equally fascist activity of Israelis towards Palestinians today. It is a blessing that so many Jews are already acting against the State of Israel.
I am also not here to be attacked personally or attack you personally but to dialogue about our understandings. Before I was banned I was still so emotionally shocked by the cult experience that people who did not agree and support me in everything I said were perceived as people who did not love me and my self steam was so low that I turned very aggressive towards them. I am very sorry that I needed so much protection after the cult experience and did not look for it somewhere else. I am a little less vulnerable today and your agreeing or disagreeing with me is an opportunity for me to reflect on my understanding and continue to hold you because you are simply another human being with as much confusion and pain as I often experience. Where you not, you would have no difficulty being kind and generous. I do not ask you to love me but there is a huge difference between a conversation in which there is love and one in which there isn’t any. There is no love in your tone, no kindness and when there is no kindness, it is very easy to dismiss what is being said because the other person has in fact dismissed one and just picked up the piece of what one said and used it for his own interests. I sincerely do not know what your interest is but I get a feeling that you are not interested in me which is all right. We are not here to focus on my self but on life. We are fortunate to have the right to freedom of speech and do not need to share deep love to be able to practice it. That is what laws are for.
I can understand that I have hurt many of you in my previous participation on this blog. I have already asked you to forgive me but I cannot force you to forgive. We each come to that in our own time.
I also sincerely thank you for questioning my thinking. Let it get buried deep in the ground if there’s nothing worth sprouting in it. It seems to be helping me and I have not lived in vain, so hopefully it can be useful to others. I have actually nowhere found a simple understanding of what being human means for the individual and society “together”. History seems to be crowded with those who dealt with the inner side or the outer side without getting to the fact that they are too sides of the same coin: the human being. Everywhere people seem to agree that it is enough to be human with those one likes and agrees with, but not with those who do not belong to one’s class, race or nation. Humanism as I am understanding it means Humanism: we are all equals as human beings. We all have the same rights and freedoms:
It is also very clear to me that most people don’t understand each other because as soon as they meet they catalogue the other person so thoroughly that they either fall into deep identification wishing to attract that person or totally ignoring them. This too I’ve observed in myself.
I sincerely believe that WE, every human being alive today, can behave humanly at least towards a few people and that wars as they are being waged are not only not necessary but criminal. Since this is my belief the least I can do is to not carry out a war with you and the many here as I did before I was banned. We are not here to agree but to talk and listen and help each other and those inside who, some agree, would benefit from not continuing to sacrifice themselves in the Fellowship cult. It is the duty of a nation and every individual inside of it to stop its people from destroying themselves or others, some still try to help individuals who are about to commit suicide, why aren’t we helping those in cults when we know they are on that train? How many more people in cults have to die before laws are passed to control them? Laws that forbid every institution and cult and anyone with no matter what authority to act against people’s human rights? I am afraid we are far from human today and need laws that will protect us from our very powerful inhuman tendencies such as Fascism just half a century ago and the equally fascist activity of Israelis towards Palestinians today. It is a blessing that so many Jews are already acting against the State of Israel.
I am also not here to be attacked personally or attack you personally but to dialogue about our understandings. Before I was banned I was still so emotionally shocked by the cult experience that people who did not agree and support me in everything I said were perceived as people who did not love me and my self steam was so low that I turned very aggressive towards them. I am very sorry that I needed so much protection after the cult experience and did not look for it somewhere else. I am a little less vulnerable today and your agreeing or disagreeing with me is an opportunity for me to reflect on my understanding and continue to hold you because you are simply another human being with as much confusion and pain as I often experience. Where you not, you would have no difficulty being kind and generous. I do not ask you to love me but there is a huge difference between a conversation in which there is love and one in which there isn’t any. There is no love in your tone, no kindness and when there is no kindness, it is very easy to dismiss what is being said because the other person has in fact dismissed one and just picked up the piece of what one said and used it for his own interests. I sincerely do not know what your interest is but I get a feeling that you are not interested in me which is all right. We are not here to focus on my self but on life. We are fortunate to have the right to freedom of speech and do not need to share deep love to be able to practice it. That is what laws are for.
I can understand that I have hurt many of you in my previous participation on this blog. I have already asked you to forgive me but I cannot force you to forgive. We each come to that in our own time.
I also sincerely thank you for questioning my thinking. Let it get buried deep in the ground if there’s nothing worth sprouting in it. It seems to be helping me and I have not lived in vain, so hopefully it can be useful to others. I have actually nowhere found a simple understanding of what being human means for the individual and society “together”. History seems to be crowded with those who dealt with the inner side or the outer side without getting to the fact that they are too sides of the same coin: the human being. Everywhere people seem to agree that it is enough to be human with those one likes and agrees with, but not with those who do not belong to one’s class, race or nation. Humanism as I am understanding it means Humanism: we are all equals as human beings. We all have the same rights and freedoms:
And Ton continues:
you complained that i “pick on a little something and neglect the whole idea…” i say that the whole is contained in the parts, even if you can’t see it… anthropocentric humanism is at the root of the problem, from your current perspective you may not see it but inherent in this doctrine you’re preaching is human egotism writ large.
NOTE: This sentence is tantamount to understanding the manipulation that is going on.
you complained that i “pick on a little something and neglect the whole idea…”
i say that the whole is contained in the parts,
even if you can’t see it…
anthropocentric humanism is at the root of the problem,
from your current perspective you may not see it
but inherent in this doctrine you’re preaching is human egotism writ large.
i say that the whole is contained in the parts,
even if you can’t see it…
anthropocentric humanism is at the root of the problem,
from your current perspective you may not see it
but inherent in this doctrine you’re preaching is human egotism writ large.
NOTE: Note that Ton doesn’t address particular points of discussion but is set on maintaining a position in which he sees something that Elena doesn’t see. He has labeled what Elena is saying with anthropocentric humanism and that what Elena is preaching is simply human egotism writ large.
Note from Elena: it is quite fascinating to see how things can be turned around in such a misconstrued manner.
NOTE: That Ton continues to assert Elena’s position of inferiority:
even if you can’t see it…
from your current perspective you may not see it
even if you can’t see it…
from your current perspective you may not see it
but he’s unwilling to take any specific point and actually deal with it. His complete argumentation circles around his own assumptions and belittling of Elena’s condition.
And he continues:
And he continues:
there are alternatives to ‘ego’ based biases…. as a philosopher, scholar and ‘author’ you might want to do more research — for example, for a critique of the ‘ego-logical’ perspective see: rozak, naess, fisher, metzner, mckenna, et al, and see whitehead’s process-relational theory.
“What Humanist theories do not allow for is the fact that a system of ethics formulated from a human perspective may not be entirely accurate; humans are not the centre of reality. Spinoza argued that we tend to assess things wrongly in terms of their usefulness to us. Spinoza reasoned that if we were to look at things objectively we would discover that everything in the universe has a unique value…. a human-centred or anthropocentric ethic is not an accurate depiction of reality, there is a bigger picture….”
“What Humanist theories do not allow for is the fact that a system of ethics formulated from a human perspective may not be entirely accurate; humans are not the centre of reality. Spinoza argued that we tend to assess things wrongly in terms of their usefulness to us. Spinoza reasoned that if we were to look at things objectively we would discover that everything in the universe has a unique value…. a human-centred or anthropocentric ethic is not an accurate depiction of reality, there is a bigger picture….”
NOTE: And note that again by quoting and Spinoza and other authors he thinks his attacks is fully justified without having ever taking even one of Elena’s statements and working with it.
What this shows is that the intention is perfectly clear: what Ton is doing is not entering into a dialogue with Elena, he is clearly trying to invalidate her and her positions but the way he does it is with personal attacks on her condition, not with sincere argumentation of her theories while Elena is, surprisingly enough, always looking for a place where dialogue is possible.
The tone, the mutual expressions, that is what actually reveals the intention of the speakers and of course, the actual form expresses those intentions. Elena is consistently trying to find the human and Ton is consistently inhumanly rejecting that possibility: perverting Elena’s position demeanoring it by ridiculing it with words such as the soap box, the slogan, the cliché….
Words that are not meant to question what is being said but to ridicule the person saying it.
Words that are not meant to question what is being said but to ridicule the person saying it.
Elena: JUST THAT IS INHUMAN
And what is inhuman is that you can clearly see that in every single one of those posts Elena is trying to be there, willingly, healthily, lovingly presenting her views one after the other without hurting anyone but her views question other people’s views only that they are not willing to tackle with the views because Elena’s foundation is very strong so they have to attack Elena and not let her be. Ton is the mouth of the blog institution that then bans her.
And what is inhuman is that you can clearly see that in every single one of those posts Elena is trying to be there, willingly, healthily, lovingly presenting her views one after the other without hurting anyone but her views question other people’s views only that they are not willing to tackle with the views because Elena’s foundation is very strong so they have to attack Elena and not let her be. Ton is the mouth of the blog institution that then bans her.
Ton will continue to insist on his position all along, when questioned deeply by Elena in the Public Square, he finally takes off the strongly demeanoring tone and begins to talk in a more equal tone unless he is confronted by the reality of the situation:
That Elena has been banned while he was the one who behaved inhuman in his manipulation.
Reply
127 Elena
Part 4 Ton-Elena Manipulation through “authorities”
127 Elena
Part 4 Ton-Elena Manipulation through “authorities”
Elena obviously falls into Ton’s trap and tries to look at the “doctrines” he presents to continue being a good sport!!! She naively states and asks Ton:
65. Elena – April 8, 2010
Thanks Ton for your observation, I will carefully meditate on it.
Thanks Ton for your observation, I will carefully meditate on it.
67. Elena – April 8, 2010
Ton: “anthropocentric humanism is at the root of the problem, from your current perspective you may not see it but inherent in this doctrine you’re preaching is human egotism writ large. there are alternatives to ‘ego’ based biases…. as a philosopher, scholar and ‘author’ you might want to do more research — for example, for a critique of the ‘ego-logical’ perspective see: rozak, naess, fisher, metzner, mckenna, et al, and see whitehead’s process-relational theory.
“What Humanist theories do not allow for is the fact that a system of ethics formulated from a human perspective may not be entirely accurate; humans are not the centre of reality. Spinoza argued that we tend to assess things wrongly in terms of their usefulness to us. Spinoza reasoned that if we were to look at things objectively we would discover that everything in the universe has a unique value…. a human-centred or anthropocentric ethic is not an accurate depiction of reality, there is a bigger picture….””
Sounds great Ton, would you share what you understand as the bigger picture? and what you’ve understood about what I am saying just to make sure that we’re on the same platform?
Ton: “anthropocentric humanism is at the root of the problem, from your current perspective you may not see it but inherent in this doctrine you’re preaching is human egotism writ large. there are alternatives to ‘ego’ based biases…. as a philosopher, scholar and ‘author’ you might want to do more research — for example, for a critique of the ‘ego-logical’ perspective see: rozak, naess, fisher, metzner, mckenna, et al, and see whitehead’s process-relational theory.
“What Humanist theories do not allow for is the fact that a system of ethics formulated from a human perspective may not be entirely accurate; humans are not the centre of reality. Spinoza argued that we tend to assess things wrongly in terms of their usefulness to us. Spinoza reasoned that if we were to look at things objectively we would discover that everything in the universe has a unique value…. a human-centred or anthropocentric ethic is not an accurate depiction of reality, there is a bigger picture….””
Sounds great Ton, would you share what you understand as the bigger picture? and what you’ve understood about what I am saying just to make sure that we’re on the same platform?
68. Elena – April 8, 2010
Ton, just to clarify, I am asking because what I am saying is so new to me that I hadn’t realized it was all that structured for you to come with this observation so it would be very helpful if you tell me what it is that you are understanding since it seems to be so clear to you.
Ton, just to clarify, I am asking because what I am saying is so new to me that I hadn’t realized it was all that structured for you to come with this observation so it would be very helpful if you tell me what it is that you are understanding since it seems to be so clear to you.
NOTE:
By this time Elena was beginning to realize that the discussion wasn’t even and that no matter what she said was taken and turned against her but kept trying to participate. She should have obviously stopped as soon as the ridiculing began but she so strongly wanted to participate that she didn’t, she tried to keep being a “good sport”.
By this time Elena was beginning to realize that the discussion wasn’t even and that no matter what she said was taken and turned against her but kept trying to participate. She should have obviously stopped as soon as the ridiculing began but she so strongly wanted to participate that she didn’t, she tried to keep being a “good sport”.
What Elena is asking Ton is to be concrete about what he understands she is saying, what his bigger picture is and to see if they are actually on the same platform to dialogue not to agree but he answers:
Note by Elena: when I look at this Ton it is really very sad. Of course you’ll just say I am playing self pity and keep denigrating my condition as you like but the more you deny to look at it for what it is the more you’ll separate your selves into denial of what actually happened. You think I am doing this analysis to attack you but I am actually doing it to defend myself from your attacks for I should have been defended by everyone present, but no one did. At least I can defend myself. It’s very helpful for my well being.
69. ton – April 8, 2010
elena,
i think we’re definitely not “on the same platform” — but that’s ok. no need to be sarcastic, clarity is an ongoing lifelong process, we both know that, and no need for disingenuousness,
elena,
i think we’re definitely not “on the same platform” — but that’s ok. no need to be sarcastic, clarity is an ongoing lifelong process, we both know that, and no need for disingenuousness,
NOTE:
Negation of being on the same platform or having any chance for it!
Negation of being on the same platform or having any chance for it!
And then the “no need to be sarcastic” although he’s been sarcastic all along!
But doesn’t answer the question and moves on to the following:
if you truly meant what you said, and were to “carefully meditate on it” then there would be no reason for me to elaborate
NOTE: Can you see how he again adopts the position of superiority in which it is Elena who is inferior in not having meditated long enough? He again attacks Elena personally and denies to answer the question and continues:
(a hint: when you “carefully meditate” too quickly, you miss the point).
NOTE: again accentuating that Elena has missed something, that she’s not meditated long enough on the doctrines he is supposed to present but is in fact not presenting.
By this time the whole conversation has centered around Elena not being good enough to understand Ton who is way superior to Elena and has presented her with a number of authors that Elena supposedly should read because Ton is in no way willing to present his own understanding openly and frankly.
NOTE: again accentuating that Elena has missed something, that she’s not meditated long enough on the doctrines he is supposed to present but is in fact not presenting.
By this time the whole conversation has centered around Elena not being good enough to understand Ton who is way superior to Elena and has presented her with a number of authors that Elena supposedly should read because Ton is in no way willing to present his own understanding openly and frankly.
The manipulation couldn’t be more obvious: it circles precisely around images of authority. Ton pretends to undermine Elena by presenting her with names of “authorities” that Elena doesn’t know and because she doesn’t know, she simply is not good enough to affirm what she’s saying that Ton is unwilling to discuss.
It is a vicious circle aimed at dis-acknowledging Elena and everything Elena says without actually addressing anything of what Elena has said or Elena herself.
End of part 4
End of part 4
Reply
128. Elena – May 17, 2010 [Edit]
Part 5. Ton’s similarities to Robert Burton- pause and reflection-
128. Elena – May 17, 2010 [Edit]
Part 5. Ton’s similarities to Robert Burton- pause and reflection-
Part 5
Ton continues, here is the whole post so that we don’t lose our selves in the little quotes:
Ton continues, here is the whole post so that we don’t lose our selves in the little quotes:
69. ton – April 8, 2010
elena,
i think we’re definitely not “on the same platform” — but that’s ok. no need to be sarcastic, clarity is an ongoing lifelong process, we both know that, and no need for disingenuousness, if you truly meant what you said, and were to “carefully meditate on it” then there would be no reason for me to elaborate (a hint: when you “carefully meditate” too quickly, you miss the point). regarding “isms” — do your “homework,” another ongoing lifelong process — i offered a few indications of where i’ve looked for a “bigger picture” (here are a couple more… thomas berry, wendell berry), but as far as that goes (“the bigger picture” that is), the possibilities are endless and it depends entirely on you. you see elena, we have this wonderful informational resource literally at our fingertips but what do we do with it? like most things that are used it can also be ab-used, unfortunately there are too many examples, but one that comes to mind in this connection is:http://thefellowshipoffriends.wikispaces.com/message/list/home there are many others… think about it, or don’t, but consider this; IF you think you already “know it all” and you’re unwilling to consider other perspectives, THEN you’re not going to be interested in what’s potentially available, and of course we all have our little personal agenda to attend to… but you know all this already… right? speaking generally, one aim of “self-examination” is to “get over yourself” and this should at least free you up and point you in the direction of a “bigger picture.” i hope this helps… otherwise, i gladly leave the soapbox to you.
elena,
i think we’re definitely not “on the same platform” — but that’s ok. no need to be sarcastic, clarity is an ongoing lifelong process, we both know that, and no need for disingenuousness, if you truly meant what you said, and were to “carefully meditate on it” then there would be no reason for me to elaborate (a hint: when you “carefully meditate” too quickly, you miss the point). regarding “isms” — do your “homework,” another ongoing lifelong process — i offered a few indications of where i’ve looked for a “bigger picture” (here are a couple more… thomas berry, wendell berry), but as far as that goes (“the bigger picture” that is), the possibilities are endless and it depends entirely on you. you see elena, we have this wonderful informational resource literally at our fingertips but what do we do with it? like most things that are used it can also be ab-used, unfortunately there are too many examples, but one that comes to mind in this connection is:http://thefellowshipoffriends.wikispaces.com/message/list/home there are many others… think about it, or don’t, but consider this; IF you think you already “know it all” and you’re unwilling to consider other perspectives, THEN you’re not going to be interested in what’s potentially available, and of course we all have our little personal agenda to attend to… but you know all this already… right? speaking generally, one aim of “self-examination” is to “get over yourself” and this should at least free you up and point you in the direction of a “bigger picture.” i hope this helps… otherwise, i gladly leave the soapbox to you.
regarding “isms” — do your “homework,”
NOTE: This is very interesting here and Elena, may I say, is such an innocent idiot. He’s playing around with her like a cat and a mouse without her realizing it. So first he claims that all isms are doctrines of some kind not to be followed and when he’s asked to give an answer from his own self, he won’t because Elena needs to read all the doctrines from the authors he is presenting to do her “homework”
Note from Elena Ton: you’re a sick bully.
another ongoing lifelong process
NOTE from Elena: and look at that gem: “another ongoing lifelong process” this guy really didn’t miss a day in the Fellowship or any of Robert’s notes. He’s actually very good at it, too bad I can’t congratulate you Ton.
NOTE: This truly is quite amazing because it begins to prove how “infected” people who have been in cults actually become and how they continue to reproduce the same patterns, behaviors and ideologies that they submitted themselves to for so long. THAT is one of the reasons that I find this analysis so necessary. We’ve got to get right down to the roots of this sickness.
So to the point: what we are seeing in this post is that Ton begins to use similar ideas to those used by Robert Burton:
1. another ongoing lifelong process
2. clarity is an ongoing lifelong process
1. another ongoing lifelong process
2. clarity is an ongoing lifelong process
What he’s obviously implying here is that Elena would need a lifelong process to be where he would “approve” her. By now, the discussion has obviously turned into a sickening game between “Ton the all knowing” and “Elena, the ignorant idiot who cannot perceive it herself and needs a lifelong work on herself to make it” and he continues:
— i offered a few indications of where i’ve looked for a “bigger picture” (here are a couple more… thomas berry, wendell berry), but as far as that goes (“the bigger picture” that is), the possibilities are endless and it depends entirely on you. you see elena, we have this wonderful informational resource literally at our fingertips but what do we do with it? like most things that are used it can also be ab-used, unfortunately there are too many examples, but one that comes to mind in this connection is:
NOTE: Is it not amazing? Just like Robert Burton he places out all his “conscious beings” that would need to be read for Elena to have a conversation with him without his belittling her and just like Robert Burton he beautifully rounds it all up by saying
“It depends entirely on you”
WOW! These are real gems. Those reading this one day must realize that beyond Ton and I and our mutual difficulties what is crystallized here is a set of mechanisms that were used systematically in the Fellowship of Friends Cult and that are again being used by Ton against Elena. Elena represents an individual with a voice of her own and Ton is trying to put her down no matter the cost. Elena has a voice of her own to a certain extent but is naïve and vulnerable enough to keep looking for the possibility of participation in the group. She unconsciously submits to the manipulation with the same hope that she had when she joined a cult: that she would be able to participate.
Ton continues:http://thefellowshipoffriends.wikispaces.com/message/list/home there are many others… think about it, or don’t, but consider this; IF you think you already “know it all” and you’re unwilling to consider other perspectives, THEN you’re not going to be interested in what’s potentially available, and of course we all have our little personal agenda to attend to… but you know all this already… right? speaking generally, one aim of “self-examination” is to “get over yourself” and this should at least free you up and point you in the direction of a “bigger picture.” i hope this helps… otherwise, i gladly leave the soapbox to you.
NOTE: so what Ton is pointing out here is that Elena already thinks that she knows it all. He plays around with her stating she’s unwilling to consider other perspectives and that the outcome is already fixed. The end is magisterial:
i hope this helps… otherwise, i gladly leave the soapbox to you.
He robes his self with the helping hand and subsequently attacks her for the soapbox that she’s in consistently trying to create doubt in Elena about Elena.
Let’s make a pause and consider other things.
Note by Elena: Let’s suppose that beyond all this nitty gritty of language, what Ton is trying to tell Elena is that she comes back to the blog and presents a new set of ideas or similar ideas to those she had presented in her previous participation with new arguments that she’s been researching. We all know another of the final arguments against Elena was that she behaved as though she was Joan of Arc. She said things as if she knew them. And what Ton is trying to tell Elena is “you’re not Joan of Arc, try to get off that pedestal and consider all these other arguments”. This would of course be very valid but my question here is: Why doesn’t anyone in the fofblog including Ton, take up Elena’s arguments and contest them?
Is it because they cannot logically contest them?
There is another question being fought here, a very interesting one which is: Suppose Elena were right in what she’s presenting, does that mean that would necessarily have to follow her?
Do people have to follow those who are right or isn’t this complete conversation about cults and what Elena has been standing up for, precisely about the fact that the individual must stand up for him and herself and not follow anyone else blindly?
There are many subtle problems in the questions that poses.
There are many subtle problems in the questions that poses.
One of the questions is that although Elena might have been “right” about very many things, things that she pointed out from the beginning and that she fought against and that gradually disappeared from the fofblog. In her questioning of people’s behavior many people changed their behavior in relation to that particular act but the animosity against Elena kept growing and Elena, being far from being an enlightened perfect being answered with equal animosity against many. That animosity is very clear before Elena was banned. Laughing in their faces was the final deed! Laughing at the idea that they had been so patient tolerating her and telling them how patient she’d been tolerating them. Why would they ever forgive her?
So the subsequent facts we have are that she indeed apologizes and returns to the blog and tries to present her questions with better arguments but Ton soon takes care of taking care of her. He feels rather well prepared. In his participation in Elena’s blog, which could be easily read if anyone can bother to, he has convinced himself that Elena is sick and that she can be driven out of her convictions fairly easily. What is he really trying to do? He is supposed to be trying to convince Elena that she is sick and that she needs to work on herself not to be sick. He clearly doesn’t really care about any of Elena’s arguments, what he’s trying to accomplish is putting Elena in her place or what he considers her place to be. Her sickness is feeling that she’s right. Her sickness, if I understand Ton, is that she’s got an ego the size of the Sun! So what he sets out to do is to convince Elena that her ego is as small as a lice and that she doesn’t have a right to think she’s right. So his argument is filled with tools to destroy Elena’s sense of herself and when he doesn’t accomplish it, the fofblogmoderator bans her!!!!
It’s quite a play!!
End of part five
End of part five
No comments:
Post a Comment