Should I stay or should I go?

[Laird]

Recently in the "Suggestion List" thread in the forum, "The Reasoning Show", David wrote to me: "I'll give you a few days to wrap up your affairs here, but then I expect you to do the honourable thing and move on."

His ostensible reason for asking me to "move on" was that I have been largely to blame for "the deterioration of the forum's standards over the past few months, more or less turning it into a ladies' salon where gossip and mundane observations dominated".

I'd like to examine those objections. Firstly, the matter of gossip. Does gossip predominate in my postings? No, that is an unfair characterisation. Am I willing though to share and inquire after personal details of myself and other posters, and do I make the odd humorous aside? Absolutely. This is a community: it's reasonable to expect that people are going to want to know about one another, and Dan as one of the hosts himself is prone to the odd bit of wit. David was perfectly willing to share at Alex's request whether or not he was on pharmaceutical drugs and whether or not he worked: what is this other than, as he puts it, "gossip"? Why is it OK for him to indulge in it and not for me?

Secondly, let's look at whether I am largely to blame for any deterioration in the forum's standards. Many people who post here are either, like me, critical of QRSH and/or not interested in enlightenment, and there are some who are largely off-topic and irrelevant. Why then should the blame for the "deterioration" of the forum fall largely on my shoulders? Nat is critical of QRSH and values relationships with women. Is his head on the chopping block too? And how about Alex? He has by his own admission been with many women, and he's vehemently critical of QRSH philosophy. When will he be banned? Am I being singled out here or is this the first step in a plan to eradicate criticism and alternate values from the forum?

Anyway, is it really fair to say that my love of women and sexuality permeates all of my posts? I find this to be a very unreasonable characterisation. David's justification seems to be that everything that I write is with the aim of being attractive to women. It's true that I want to be attractive to women, but it's also true that I want to be a responsible, honest, decent, morally and intellectually respectable person, all of which are more important to me than being attractive to women. So does my desire to be attractive to women realistically affect my posts? Not particularly. How are my posts any different in this regard than any other actively heterosexual male's posts? Are all of us to be banned? How many of my posts even reference romance and/or sexuality? A very, very slim minority.

Finally, I'd like to examine the issue of "mundane observations". The subject matter of this forum is philosophical, and what's mundane to one person might be startling to the next. Some of the things that I have said have definitely struck a chord with different people. Here are a few examples:
1. in the thread "Making peace with femininity", spelnxpert wrote of something that I had written, "Wow, this really blew me away",
2. in the thread "Does it matter or not?", brokenhead several times expressed agreement with what I'd written, implying that, whether or not mundane, my thoughts were at least worthwhile to him,
3. in the thread, "Naturalistic philosophy denies life?", |read| wrote of me that I am "a very strong analytic thinker", and,
4. again in the thread, "Naturalistic philosophy denies life?", Jamesh wrote "I think Laird brings something to the forum. I don't find him shallow".

So, as I've outlined above, the ostensible reasons that David has provided for banning me are illegitimate. What other reasons might one legitimately be banned from a forum for? Perhaps I've been rude and abusive? Nope. Perhaps I've been libelous? Nope. Perhaps I've posted offensive material? Nope. Perhaps I've been posting reams of off-topic material? Nope - at least no more so than many other posters.

What, then, might the real reasons be?

Could it be that it's because I bring a strong critical mind to this forum, a mind that is capable of critiquing QRSH-think, a mind that performs that task effectively, and a mind that argues effectively for values that QRSH have rejected? Could it be, in other words, that the real reason that David wants to ban me is that I bring a dose of conventional wisdom to a place whose unconventional wisdom is of questionable and debatable worth?

If criticism were my only contribution to this forum then it would be easy to see why QRSH tire of me, but criticism is not my only contribution here. I've also presented my views and experiences on a variety of subjects, from my own version of enlightenment, to lucid dreaming, to love and relationships, to my ideas on peace, to my ideas on ethical production and consumption, and to my favourite music. I strive to be topical, relevant, well-structured, grammatically correct, and entertaining (where appropriate), and to at all times support my opinions with reasoned arguments. I have tried to contribute meaningfully and usefully to the life of this forum, which life I value as this place has become my primary hobby aside from Skype. I put a lot of effort and energy into my posts here and for a while now I have been reading every single post that's made to the forum.

I want to make myself clear: I do not wish to be banned from nor to stop participating in this forum. I enjoy the discussions and debates that occur and I appreciate the community of people who post here, even (especially) QRSH. David, if you ban me you will be communicating that you are intolerant of serious opposition, that you wish to stifle criticism, and that your desire is for a forum consisting entirely of sycophants and sympathisers.

David, please reconsider your decision. I'm not really that bad of a guy, we just disagree on crucial matters. Respectful disagreement is healthy. As Ataraxia wrote in another thread (paraphrased), it can inspire great thoughts.

In case I am banned, anyone who wants to stay in contact with me can reach me via email. My address is lairdshaw at dodo dot com dot au.

[Kevin Solway]

I think David's reasoning is that this is a forum primarily intended for those whose main priority in life is to become enlightened and who deeply hunger for a complete understanding of Ultimate Truth.

Since you don't meet either of these criteria even remotely it means that you are not one of those for whom this forum is intended.

You might not agree that we should seek enlightenment and truth, first and above all things, but you can put your argument in a few paragraphs and then be done with it. I presume you have already done this.

This site should definitely not be used as a social networking site like facebook, etc.

If your main priority is women and the emotional enjoyment of life, then this will naturally pervade all of your thoughts and actions.

Having an ability to reason analytically, say, more than the average woman, is meaningless. You should know that by now. There are many fundamentalist Christians who are strong analytical reasoners, who have no proximity to truth whatsoever.

[Ataraxia]

It seems to me at least, Laird does try to understand the philosophy, and the 'Laird Totality'thread aside, doesn't troll.

Surely confessing to be in search of girlfriend isn't the most heinous of crimes.I'm married myself, but nevertheless intensely interested in understanding Eastern philosophy from the bottom up in an enviroment that has a respect for logical method.Perhaps being a bit of naysayer is his way of seeking guidance.Everyone has different methods.

If his confessions in the reasoningshow thread are anything to go on then he is probably in need of some "philosophical-friends"at the moment-I fail to see how he would 'improve' by being cast out.

[snow bunny]

I definitely didn't have any problems with Laird. I thought you were the poster boy for genius forums. I always noticed that your posts were extremely long, but that is usually a good thing to most people, since it adds to the content. I, personally, never read them, but that's because I don't like to take part, unless I am involved in the particular discussion from the beginning. I was actually surprised that you were "asked to leave" by David Quinn. Sounds liked he sucked all the juices out of you, and once you had made your valuable contribution, then told you you were out. I don't think they will ban you, and I am for you, which might mean something, since we have chatted from time to time on here. Interesting that you are the reason they closed worldly matters, and at least I now know why that happened. Take it as a feather in your cap that you were the one responsible.

I always thought that you were right on point with your long-winded, boring, philosophical rhetoric.

Peace, and your friend always,

Buns

[Jamesh]

again in the thread, "Naturalistic philosophy denies life?", Jamesh wrote "I think Laird brings something to the forum. I don't find him shallow".

Do I find you shallow? Well that really all depends on where and to one measures from. If measuring from the top, from the ultimate, then you are shallow, but from the low or the mean or even the majority, then no, you are not shallow.

I could easily bring the same claims that the QRS attach to you, against them. Like why the fuck did they bother engaging Robert the Bruce for the long?

All the same, a bit of "pointing the bone" medicine might do you good, in a philosophical sense.

Having a break often allows the brain to re-associate what it has experienced. Subconsciously a bigger picture viewpoint can form, without you even realising it. Continued argument on much the same matters becomes a promotion and defence strategy of the ego, and tends to reinforce a persons ego and thus their existing opinions. When such strategising is absent then the brain has more of an opportunity to assess the information it now has, but without as much conscious emotion (there are still the emotional tags attached to each memory, to the data of the subconscious), then new truths can arise.

Well sometimes that is.

[maestro]

I for one think that Laird had nothing to do with the closure of worldly matters it was the likes of Bunny and Sandman.

I think Laird does provide a useful function as he mounts a challenge to the values here from the conventional viewpoint. As most of us are brought up in this viewpoint and live in the midst of it, there is a strong trace of it in everyone. For a seeker it is very emotionally uncomfortable to have such constant challenge from the dominant perspective to his own worldview which he is grappling to feel secure in.

[Alex Jacob]

Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me.
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree.
_________________________________________

That was a Literary Reference...

...

Oh, nevermind...

[Alex Jacob]

"Who were all these strange ghosts rooted to the silly little adventure of earth with me? And who was I? "

----Jack Kerouak, The Dharma Bums.

[Dave Toast]

Not only do I think that the proposal in question is bang out of order, I think it's also completely unjust and sends out a bad message.

It is an exercise in understatement to say that, over the years, this place has had more than it's fair share of wankers, nutters, biggots, trolls and rampant egotists; not a single one of them even slightly interested in any of the values espoused by the forum and admins, many of them anti simply for the sake of it. Not only have barely a single one of these wastes of neurons been moved on, some of them have been allowed to stay for years on end and are still with us today.

But we're all (mostly) grown ups and it's worthwhile having to skip over posts from a large proportion of members in order to operate a policy and uphold the value of complete non-censorship. This policy and value is obviously abused by the fools as a matter of course but the point is that it's there for the benefit and edification of the other members and their interaction.

Holding his activities and contribution up against the values espoused at the top of every page on this forum, to my mind, Laird has a genuine interest in increasing his understanding, seeking wisdom and even in seeking his enlightenment. He endeavours to reason to the best of his knowledge and ability (truth, logic), which is the most any of us are capable of. He generally attempts to answer every single point put to him and is not afraid to defend his views when the going gets tough and the blood starts flying (courage, honesty). How this reflects his courage and honesty in accepting truth and in life in general is a moot point as the kernel is obviously there and one can only ever rationally accept a truth one recognises the legitimacy of. Besides that, the truths espoused here aren't the kind that sink in overnight.

We've always tollerated the weeds in the garden, regardless of their degenerative effect on some of the seeds that are sown. I've always seen this as the price we have to pay for no holes barred free speech. Many weeds have their own beauty. I personally find the rampant egotists every bit as instructional as their counterparts. The point here is not that I'm saying Laird is one of those weeds but that carrying out the proposal is to actively plant your own weeds amongst your own seeds.

I think the word 'integrity' should be included amongst those at the top of every page. And, for me, integrity is what this whole issue boils down to. On the one hand there is the adherence to upholding the ethical code of some parts of the proposed and espoused path to enlightenment - masculinity, emotionalism. On the other hand is the adherence to upholding the ethical code of the over all picture of the proposed and espoused path to enlightenment. Either way it'll be a compromise but surely it's preferable to compromise parts as opposed to the whole. Allowing weeds their place in the world is all very well and good. Planting your own weeds amongst the seeds you've scattered is willfully counterproductive.

[Alex Jacob]

"STRANGER! if you, passing, meet me, and desire to speak to me, why should you not speak to me? And why should I not speak to you?"

---Walt Whitman, 'To You'
________________________________________

"You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books, You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me, You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self."

...

"These are really the thoughts of all men in all ages and lands, they are not original with me, If they are not yours as much as mine they are nothing, or next to nothing, If they are not the riddle and the untying of the riddle they are nothing, If they are not just as close as they are distant they are nothing. This is the grass that grows wherever the land is and the water is, This the common air that bathes the globe."

...

"I am the poet of the woman the same as the man,
And I say it is as great to be a woman as to be a man,
And I say there is nothing greater than the mother of men."

...

"I believe in the flesh and the appetites, Seeing, hearing, feeling, are miracles, and each part and tag of me is a miracle. Divine am I inside and out, and I make holy whatever I touch or am touch'd from,
The scent of these arm-pits aroma finer than prayer, This head more than churches, bibles, and all the creeds."

...

"A morning-glory at my window satisfies me more than the metaphysics of books."

...

"I have no chair, no church, no philosophy,
I lead no man to a dinner-table, library, exchange,
But each man and each woman of you I lead upon a knoll,
My left hand hooking you round the waist,
My right hand pointing to landscapes of continents and the public road.
Not I, not any one else can travel that road for you,
You must travel it for yourself.
It is not far, it is within reach,
Perhaps you have been on it since you were born and did not know,
Perhaps it is everywhere on water and on land."

...

"I believe a leaf of grass is no less than the journey work of the stars,
And the pismire is equally perfect, and a grain of sand, and the egg
of the wren, And the tree-toad is a chef-d'oeuvre for the highest,
And the running blackberry would adorn the parlors of heaven,
And the narrowest hinge in my hand puts to scorn all machinery,
And the cow crunching with depress'd head surpasses any statue,
And a mouse is miracle enough to stagger sextillions of infidels."

---Walt Whitman, 'Song to Myself'

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Isn't this a bit over-dramatic? I thought David's recommendation was geared to give Laird take a short, few-month break. Such hiatuses aren't uncommon, and in my time at GF I've taken a few myself, to recharge my batteries. I've also seen breaks recommended to other posters (Elizabeth sticks out in my mind as someone who was told to take a break after a few weeks of excessive posting).

A few months on another forum, or unplugged and out in the world, is rarely without benefit. Seeing how other people handle life and philosophy, or seeing ways to relate your philosophy to another crowd, is often an inspiring experience. My time at GF is enhanced by the time I've spent on the now-defunct Ponderers' Guild, at the Nexopia Politics and Debate forum, at Richard Dawkins' forum, on the SomethingAwful forums, and elsewhere... not to mention the times that I've gone to hospitals, lived with street kids, or explored academic philosophy.

[Dave Toast]

That's all true Trev but it's not the issue.

The issue is justice, whether it is deserved, and what enacting injustice says about those doing it.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Laird does not seek the QRSH definition of enlightenment, and he rightly questions if that is in fact the wisest path.

What, then, might the real reasons be?

I think that the real reason is that you did not smooth things over in your confrontation with David. David has banned more users than the other 2 combined (defining users as people who have been posting awhile). Each time, he has banned them during a particular confrontation with him. It isn't so much that this is a cult-like atmosphere where you must agree or be banned from the community as it is that David does not tolerate insubordination.

I would like to point out though that it was nice of David to allow Laird a few days to wrap up his affairs. David does not usually give such a nice gesture to people he wants to leave.

[maestro]

I think that the real reason is that you did not smooth things over in your confrontation with David. David has banned more users than the other 2 combined (defining users as people who have been posting awhile). Each time, he has banned them during a particular confrontation with him. It isn't so much that this is a cult-like atmosphere where you must agree or be banned from the community as it is that David does not tolerate insubordination.

I would like to point out though that it was nice of David to allow Laird a few days to wrap up his affairs. David does not usually give such a nice gesture to people he wants to leave.

Is this true? I was wondering where did Victor go. Has David banned him, for nobody is more guilty of insubordination than him?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Nah, Victor doesn't hang out here long enough to get banned.

[samadhi]

I had one extended interaction with Laird on the "What Does It Matter?" thread. He definitely showed an interest in enlightenment, at least as far as becoming informed of its meaning and expression. Few people even get that far. It seems counterproductive to turn away someone who genuinely inquires as to the meaning of enlightenment. What purpose could this site serve if not to help those who inquire become more informed? To demand that such a person immediately incorporate such information in his posts seems to require an adherence to some message or doctrine which is not in the spirit of enlightenment at all. Enlightenment begins with inquiry. It makes no demands but always offers an invitation to look deeper into one's true nature. Laird's banishment, far from reflecting an enlightened attitude, seems more consistent with enforcing conformity than creating and fostering a spirit of inquiry into one's true being.

[brokenhead]

I think Dave Toast put it perfectly well above.

There is a misanthropic element to QRS logic. That is part of its fascination for me. It holds Man's ability to reason in the highest regard, while often denigrating fellow man for his "failings." The implicit message is "I'm better than everyone else."

Or at least than everone who doesn't think like I do.

To ban Laird for showing a human side is shameful. QRS shit stinks like everyone else's, does it not? "You refuse to play by my rules. It is my ball, so you go home." A forum is where people express themselves. If by their expression they happen to let on that they do not meet your standards so it means they are not welcome, that is a chilling message to send. And Kevin knows Laird personally. How do you think the rest of us should react to this? Closing down Worldly Matters is one thing. It is not personal. This is too personal and demonstrates just what kind of person QRS reasoning turns one into.

The idea of taking a break from GF for one's own good is, IMO, a sound one, on the face of it. But why not let the individual member decide when would be a good time to do that, and how much time to take? It seems, from the size of the active member list and how many seem to be posting at any one time, that this is in fact what happens as a matter of course.

There isn't one member here that I agree with all the time. David and Kevin, is that what you are looking for? Sycophants?

Banning Laird of all people is not the gentlemanly thing to do. The reasoning seems personal and petty. It seems too emotionally based to be worthy of QRS reasoning.

Why don't you think of a graceful way to reverse your decree so that everyone can save face and fight nice? It would be the genius thing to do.

[Tomas]

.


A world without war...


by Laird Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:32

I don't know what to say. I have a vivid imagination, and that's enough to fuck me up at the thought of the reality war. When I see guys like Carl saying shit like (paraphrased) "war is just the way that the world is, just accept it", I can't tell you how much I want to thrust him into the reality of it and see just how the fuck he enjoys what he's condemning other people to. I certainly am not in any way prepared to go there. Pardon the swearing, I'm a little drunk right now.

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

by hsandman Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:46

Laird, I command you to annotate your posts that are contrary to your real feelings on subject, by inserting "/sarcasm" at the end of such sentences. Your intelligence mixed with total lack of perspective confuses me. I can't figure out anymore where sarcasm/humor ends and naivety begins in your posts. Thanks to Carl for pointing that out in another thread. :-(

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

by Laird Feb 16, 2008 2:44

I'm going to go out shortly and I don't have time to read that mammoth page right now. I'll try to get through it in the coming days.

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

by Laird Thursday Feb 21, 2008 9:36

Nat, even though I'm currently off posting duties, I couldn't help but respond to this. I want to thank you for your support. It actually made me very emotional (admittedly I'm quite drunk). You are a good friend.

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



-tomas-
You know, something as serious as, "A world without war", only happened in the Garden of Eden for but a short time. Then, liquor was introduced. One cannot be taken seriously (about spiritual warfare) if one is gonna be drunk half the time, physically.

Your wakeup call was showing off to the neighborhood kids how fast you could run. A falling down drunk needs time to sober up.

Get it together, Laird.
Take Elizabeth's and Trevor's advice ... take the break David (and Kevin) have afforded you.

Go easy.



Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason



.

[Alex Jacob]

"Why don't you think of a graceful way to reverse your decree so that everyone can save face and fight nice? It would be the genius thing to do."
_________________________________________

Is this what we've become?
Watch, and be careful
__________________________________________

New Forum Rules
New Forum Rules
__________________________________________

Just Punishment

[Trevor Salyzyn]

The issue is justice, whether it is deserved, and what enacting injustice says about those doing it.

I don't know about justice and injustice: that might be a bit of a stretch. David does this sort of thing often enough that it practically deserves its own formula.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Forum Member X and David disagree on Topics A and B, which David claims are essential to enlightenment. After a few long arguments that go nowhere and establish nothing, David says that these things need to be experienced to be understood. The argument continues, and David strongly recommends that Forum Member X takes a break, to return when and if he decides that he wants to discuss enlightenment further.

Take it from me: getting banned by David is nothing to worry about. It's like a slap on the wrist, best confronted by going to another forum and trying out your ideas on a different crowd for a while. Now, getting banned by Dan... that's scary. If you aren't an outright troll, you know, even in the grips of dementia, that there's something seriously wrong with your thinking.

[Alex Jacob]

[The reason Whitman came to mind, and Kerouac too, is because I get a sort of Whitmanesque hit from Laird. Reading the quotes from Whitman's poems, the man spiritualized all the different upwellings of life that he saw around him. The reverence he has for life in totality is nothing short of awesome. Seeing that, touching that, that was his spirituality. The whole mood of Whitman seemed to permeate and intoxicate the beats like Kerouac and Ginsberg and Snyder, yet these men too were vitally interested in the message(s) of the Buddha, yet certainly Kerouac gives active expression to his Catholicism in his core love of people; a deep, a robust personalism that connects him to life, does not separate him from life.

[Obviously---oh so obviously---this forum is of an opposite school. For 'it', all those Whitmanesque utterances amounts to noting more than the babbling of a fool, a man charmed from Reality by a song that comes from Maya. It is natural and inevitable that Laird would have run ins with someone from the opposite side of the equation.

[In my case, I stand very much in-between. For example, I just found an old copy of 'Whispers from Eternity' by Paramahansa Yogananda, and I'll bet you a melaleuca and 2 wallabies that David and Dan and Kevin would have everything in common with Yogananda's asceticism and very little in common with Whitman spiritual view of manifest reality. Yogananda's whole view of reality, his praxis, is radically different than Whitman's.

[The 'danger' of the renunciant's path is that so much is placed in states you have to work inwardly to attain, or in a whole world to come, as for example in the Vaishnava view of things. In a very real sense you sacrifice life in all its confusion and profusion for the 'promise' of something real and eternal....in some other life, or time, or state of being. The danger of a pure lover of life is that of dissolution; to give oneself up to the external vision, to the external promise, and to 'shipwreck in matter', in the 'material condition'.

[I think that if the dichotomy is identified it might be easier to deal with it, if only to understand that different people are motivated by different dharma in the strict sense of the word].

[Dan Rowden]

This is too personal and demonstrates just what kind of person QRS reasoning turns one into.

Excuse me, but can you guys stop with the "what one QRS does indicates what all QRS are like" stuff? I object to it in the strongest possible terms. Among other things it's a Scotsman fallacy. I think it would be intellectually and ethically decent to judge me on the things that I actually do.

As for moving Laird on, I have stated I don't agree with it. However, I do believe that he ought be treated as the equivalent of a "hostile witness", his preference for reading seducer material over stuff about enlightenment having been stated by him explicitly. This makes him an antagonist to wisdom, one with impure motives that permeate his writings, but worse than that, inform and ultimately undermine his attempts at understanding what is said to him. That, of course, is what is typical of those who try to argue the virtues of conventional mindsets. But, that's the reality out there, folks, and I suppose that, however tedious it can get, it's something that has to be continually addressed.

[Leyla Shen]

Laird has been, to a large degree if not completely, a conscientious objector to the Woman philosophy. Upheld by this philosophy are the very values at the top of this forum. It should be no surprise that ultimately this is the philosophical criteria by which every participant is judged in the final analysis (which explains why flea trolls and bigots, etc., are left literally to their own devices). What a hypocrite David would be if this were not so. Even I, as a female, have always understood this and, on that basis, have continued to return here over the years not essentially to kill the philosophy, but to understand it.

I think the truth is that this part of Laird’s philosophy was never up for review. I, too, think this is obvious.

If I am to compare the inspiration and stimulation I derive from Laird compared to Kevin, Dan, David and Sue---well, suffice it to say that whereas Laird has not impacted me philosophically at all, the other three* most definitely have. And I both respect and value that immensely.

I have held contrary positions to this philosophy myself, but have also always appreciated the tumultuous truth in what I now think is best described as its undercurrent. For the serious thinker/philosopher, it leaves no room for taking offence and I, personally, often find most objections, often glaringly self-contradictory, to it incredibly lame in philosophical terms. That is, I find too much truth (as uncomfortable as it may be at times) in it to discard it out of hand, as I think Laird and many others defensively (as opposed to philosophically, of course) do.

Whether Laird is banned or not is up to David and Laird. I should like to think they are sufficiently masculine to deal with it between themselves.

This really isn’t a question of political democracy. Nevertheless, in what is clearly the spirit of this particular thread, I add to it that David has my support for upholding his own integrity on the matter.

[*Edit: make that "four, individually,..."]

[Ryan Rudolph]

Laird’s character is essentially not ready for enlightenment. He is far too green in the world, far too optimistic, naïve, hopeful and unrealistic about many fanciful stances he takes on his own life, and the lives of others. He is too wishy washy, too conventional, not masculine enough, not serious enough.

He needs to have many of his naïve positions crashed by world experience, he needs to feel the indifferent wraith of god’s causal punishments, and only then, will he benefit from GF, only then will he return to the forum with a deeper seriousness for life, and a passion to negate the causes of his own self-inflicted suffering.