Should I stay or should I go?

[Leyla Shen]

Man, puke, anyone?

Laird, I honestly hope, deep down, you don't find this kind of attention from the pro-Laird lobby philosophically enlightening. Please tell me you ain't THAT needy!

[Carl G]

To function in a psychotic world, we need fluid persona.

That is a very worldly truth; one that likely has crept into GF unbeknownst to the carriers of these personae. One of the goals of GF, as I understand, is to help cause people to see their true self. Yet, a true self such as Laird gets banished.

This may be one of the goals, but it is surely not the only one. Surely this seeing is meant to lead to refinements in being, such as clearer thinking, more ego-free moments. You speak as if all one needs to do is see that one is an idiot, or ignorant, or irrational. That would be a form of New Ageism; I accept myself for who I am, and that is all I need do.

I think Laird's problem is that he does not see that he does not see. True there are others like that here. However, Laird tends to be more vocal than many, and more proud of how he is.

I see a few personas here, rather than people presenting themselves as they truly are. They claim to shun the opinions of the herd only because they crave acceptance of the herd here - and maybe particularly of David, the most discriminating of the herders here.

There is something special about getting the approval of someone who hardly approves of anyone. Getting the approval of someone who is forgiving and loves everyone gets regarded as no big deal. It's the value associated with supply and demand. It is a different sort of person who values something based on benefit and quality alone.

If you think most posters here are trying to curry David's favor, could you explain why so many are speaking up in favor of Laird staying?

Presenting a persona that David would find tolerable is far different than the kind of actual growth that reflects the idealistic purpose of leading a caravan to wisdom.

I don't see a lot of kissing up to David occurring on this forum. Who?

I think this thread is a classic litmus test type thread, where the responders to Laird's appeal reveal their level of understanding of the objectives of this forum and the subject of spiritual development. Very interesting.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

This may be one of the goals, but it is surely not the only one.

True, but it is necessarily the first step. If one takes any other steps before taking this one, that person is walking on a path of delusion.

I think Laird's problem is that he does not see that he does not see.

I think the problem of the people of this opinion, including the administrators, is that they could not find a way of communicating to Laird exactly what it was that he could not see. I lay the blame on people other than Laird for this, because Laird showed full willingness to communicate.

If you think most posters here are trying to curry David's favor, could you explain why so many are speaking up in favor of Laird staying?

That word "most" came from you, not from me.

I don't see a lot of kissing up to David occurring on this forum. Who?

A couple of obvious examples would be Ryan and Sue. My "food attachments" thread was pretty much just kissing up, as was your insult of the thread until Dan announced that he approved of the idea even though he found it obvious. As Trevor once correctly pointed out, being subtle is not my forte. More widespread is the bleary line between getting tacit approval through lack of willingness to confront, and simply being polite. I confront quite clodishly, but when I get nervous I make up for it by kissing up. It's reflexive, and I'm not sure if it is a good characteristic or a bad one.

Actually, here's a prime example of kissing up to administration:

I think this thread is a classic litmus test type thread, where the responders to Laird's appeal reveal their level of understanding of the objectives of this forum and the subject of spiritual development. Very interesting.

[Steven Coyle]

Didn't the Clash write the song, "Should I stay or should I go?," about women...?

[Carl G]

Elizabeth,

Is every agreement with the Administrators and their philosophy kissing up? That's how you appear to paint it, referencing Ryan and Sue in general, and my comment about the litmus test in specific.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Man, puke, anyone?

Whenever I post in this thread, I feel like I've inadvertantly joined the cast of some soap opera. This has become so dramatic that I'm starting to wonder if David let Laird say his good-byes to prove a point. Is it Laird's last chance? The keystone to Laird's contributions to this forum? A gentlemanly wrapping up of affairs? On all three counts, it doesn't inspire confidence. There, I said it. Held up to the light, this thread alone, from the opening post until now, is enough to make me side with David. This is not GF material. It's gossip, started by Laird.

[Alex Jacob]

I don't think you understood at all what I was trying to say, Elizabeth.

It's funny, I've had this song in my head for 2 days now! [Banishment required].
_______________________________________

With all my heart, and from the depths of my heart, to all I offer a most beautiful story.

[Laird]

Leyla: no, I don't find the attention philosophically enlightening, but I appreciate it personally. Why shouldn't I? Human beings are social creatures as I've argued before on this forum: the opinions of other people affect us and matter to us. It's far more pleasant to live in a world where one is liked than in a world where one is disliked. I used to get teased a fair bit as a kid, so I know what it's like to be hated. As for being "needy" - well, no, I don't "need" the attention, but when it happens I appreciate it. I wouldn't have started this "attention-seeking" thread had I not been threatened with expulsion - it's not like I'm out actively looking for approval.

Trevor: certainly, this is not GF material, but where else should I have posted it given that Worldly Matters is closed? You charge me with "gossip", but what alternative do I have? I don't want to go and I believe that my being asked to leave is unfair. Are you denying me the opportunity to defend myself and to present my case for staying?

[Carl G]

Laird,

certainly, this is not GF material, but where else should I have posted it given that Worldly Matters is closed? You charge me with "gossip", but what alternative do I have? I don't want to go and I believe that my being asked to leave is unfair. Are you denying me the opportunity to defend myself and to present my case for staying?

You could have PM'd or Emailed David. It was not necessary, or especially appropriate, to put your case to a vote, in effect, among the posters here. That said, I don't quite agree that this thread is gossip or that it hasn't touched on valid GF themes. Reasons for being here, how one's posts reflect one's priorities, and the question of how does one come to truly see oneself would be three of them.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Carl, the "vote" as you put it does not matter. It is the QRS' board, and they can do whatever they please. It seems like it would be an unnecessary bother to gather and redistribute the thoughts of each of the members of the board when a public message would do the job much more efficiently anyway. Or are you opposed to the distribution of any thoughts that are not QRS-approved? That seems to be the reason for Laird being asked to leave in the first place. I doubt that without additional input from other sources, David would change his mind. If Laird could present his own case to David sufficiently, the entire episode would not have occurred.

It is only worth posting about because these guys are open to disagreement, so long as it is well thought out - or so they say. There seem to be a fair number of GF thinkers who think that Laird is of benefit to the board, and some can explain how so in ways that communicate more meaningfully to David than Laird can (yet, anyway).

Whenever I post in this thread, I feel like I've inadvertantly joined the cast of some soap opera.

Then quit clicking on this thread. To some extent, yes it is drama, but not all drama is meaningless. Sure, in the John Wayne movies, whenever someone was shot, they promptly dropped dead. No drama. Is it truly better for everyone to just complacently drop dead whenever they are shot, whether or not they were shot for the right reasons, just to avoid drama?

[Lydiia Knightjoy]

Laird, I honestly hope, deep down, you don't find this kind of attention from the pro-Laird lobby philosophically enlightening. Please tell me you ain't THAT needy!

So, you think that Laird, failing to gain the attention you believe he craves, through his compelling postings, threw up his hands and consciously decided that risking being booted from this forum which is an important part of his (online) life, by provoking David and others, would be worth it if others would come and stroke his ego for a day or two? I hope you are further along on the path to Enlightenment than you are on the path to using logic properly.

Is every agreement with the Administrators and their philosophy kissing up?

Not necessarily. It may simply reveal that their level of understanding of this forum and that of their spiritual development is as good (or poor) as that of the hosts, depending on one's point of view.

[Carl G]

Carl, the "vote" as you put it does not matter.

I doubt that without additional input from other sources, David would change his mind....It is only worth posting about because these guys are open to disagreement, so long as it is well thought out

Which is it, Elizabeth, the vote doesn't matter or it does?

Never mind. Time will tell.

are you opposed to the distribution of any thoughts that are not QRS-approved?

Yes, as a matter of fact.

*rolls eyes*

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Laird,

Trevor: certainly, this is not GF material, but where else should I have posted it given that Worldly Matters is closed? You charge me with "gossip", but what alternative do I have? I don't want to go and I believe that my being asked to leave is unfair. Are you denying me the opportunity to defend myself and to present my case for staying?

No, I'm presenting my ethic: the reason I would have for not doing what you are doing. I've been kicked from forums before -- this one included -- and I always prefer to let the ban speak for itself. It makes a statement for or against the moderators regardless of how much noise you add to it. Stoicism does not necessarily go unnoticed.

You are not being perma-banned, so the alternative is clear: bite the bullet and accept the moderator decision despite your disagreement; later, if GF is still valuable to you, return to the forum when you no longer feel as though you have been slighted. This is the course I would take. I have no reason to recommend any other.


Elizabeth,

Then quit clicking on this thread. To some extent, yes it is drama, but not all drama is meaningless. Sure, in the John Wayne movies, whenever someone was shot, they promptly dropped dead. No drama. Is it truly better for everyone to just complacently drop dead whenever they are shot, whether or not they were shot for the right reasons, just to avoid drama?

This reminds me of a Far Side cartoon: "...and for God's sake men, if any one of you are shot, don't just slump over and die. Try to fall screaming from the rooftop."

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Carl, the "vote" as you put it does not matter.


Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I doubt that without additional input from other sources, David would change his mind....It is only worth posting about because these guys are open to disagreement, so long as it is well thought out


Which is it, Elizabeth, the vote doesn't matter or it does?

Please tell me that you know the difference between a discussion and a tally of how many people hold a particular opinion.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I don't think you understood at all what I was trying to say, Elizabeth.

That is, of course, possible. It is also possible that you misunderstood my response. Not all responses are rebuttals of another poster's position. Sometimes, it's just a tangental addendum.

[David Quinn]

I think that Elizabeth might be onto something with her suggestion that David does not tolerate insubordination. He represents himself as a spiritual master and it seems likely that he resents anyone who challenges that self-image. I challenged it in my satire and probably that is where the seeds of this decision were sown.

Once again, you're vastly overrating your attempted satire. It made no impact on me at all. As I said at the time, I thought it was poor quality and barely read a word of it.

The mob at Olio might have thought it was the bees knees, but that is hardly a ringing endorsement, is it.

No, I was onto you from the very first moment you set foot on the forum. I saw instantly the sort of character you were, and how incompatible you were with the forum's aims. You don't realize how generous we have been in allowing you to remain on the forum for as long as we have. I'm only surprised that Kevin encouraged you to join the forum in the first place.

If you really want to know what sparked the events that are occurring now, it was your admitted habit of posting while drunk and using the forum as a social network and pick-up joint, all the while not having the faintest understanding why that might be a problem. To me, that was the final straw.

David, I don't appreciate your condescension one little bit. Each of your succeeding posts increasingly mischaracterises my philosophical maturity: from an adolescent I am regressed to a baby as you seek a justification for your decision. In reality my contribution to this forum has been anything but childish. I don't mind being represented as youthful from the perspective of having an innocent, playful and/or joyous attitude towards life, but I object to being represented as youthful from the perspective of philosophical immaturity and then to be further misrepresented as infantile.

That is how I see you. Unfortunately, your resentment doesn't exactly help in changing this perception.

I object to the implication that I have not made any steps in my life. With the exception of being dependent on government welfare for the past few years, and of a period of around a year where I lived with my parents, my adult life has been entirely independent and filled with experiences that have led to growth. I've worked in a corporate environment, I've worked as a labourer, I've worked in hospitality, I've driven around Australia twice, I've travelled to Europe, South Africa and the USA (with my family), and I've spent several years studying engineering at university. I've met many people in my life (I suppose that most of us can say the same thing) and have been influenced greatly by some of them.

None of this is remotely relevant. You really do not understand.

I am talking about something far more important - namely, the reluctance to leave of the safety of embryonic consciousness, in which everything is mysterious and unformed, and taking the risk to affirm something - anything - as being absolutely true. It is the very first step towards developing a spirituality. And yet it is a step that, for whatever reason, you will not take.

This lack of risk and movement shines out in all of your posts. And yet you resent me for pointing it out to you.

You could travel to the end of the world and back and it still won't have the slightest impact on you, so long as you don't address this core problem of refusing to leave embryonic consciousness behind.

For that to happen, you are going to have to admit to yourself that there is a problem.

And there's the rub. Because you have not left embryonic consciousness behind and thus not perceived the contrast between it and a more developed consciousness, you currently have no means of understanding what I am talking about. Hence, every time I speak with you, I feel as though I am talking with a 14-year-old who thinks he knows everything and yet knows nothing. Hopefully, this shock ejection from the forum will spark something inside you, but I must admit I won't be holding my breath.

One of the biggest personal steps that I have taken in my philosophical growth has been my decision to become a vegetarian, which I made at the end of 1989 at the age of twelve, after someone (I forget who) pointed out to me that it perfectly matched my respect for life.

That pretty much says it all, really.

As for being a "wet blanket": in a way this is gratifying to read. It's something of an admission that my criticism of your philosophy has affected you - that I am capable of "smothering your flames".

You don't smother my flame in any way, but you do have an affect on the forum. For example, the couple of months over the Christmas period in which your posts dominated was the lowest the forum has ever been. The place was almost spiritually dead. I was ready to close the forum down because of it.

I hate to think of anyone with real potential for wisdom visiting the forum during that period. They would have taken a look at your posts and dismissed the place as a joke, and rightly so.

As for "opposing all philosophy, all spirituality": that's just not true. My philosophy and sense of spirituality is different than yours, David, but nevertheless very much existent.

To the degree that you refuse to leave embryonic consciousness behind and start seeking absolute truth, you are in opposition to all philosophy and all spirituality, without exception.

I'm not sure there is any point in discussing this matter any further. Like a woman, you could talk your way out of a paper bag if you wanted to, but all it does is deflect attention away from this core problem inside you, which you simply won't address. I don't want to be a party to that. So unless you have something radically different to offer, we really should put an end to the saga now.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Two things that are probably worth addressing: 1) despite what a couple of you think, I have not specifically supported Laird in this matter, I have simply clarified my position on matters of banning people. I understand Dave's reasons whilst holding a different attitude to what response is appropriate; 2) GF is not a community. I can't emphasise this enough because it is quintessentially important. If you have this attitude towards it, you are bringing an entirely unwelcome and philosophically and spiritually corrosive mindset to the place. This, in fact, is part of the reason that Dave has moved Laird on (and part of the reason I closed WM down). Philosophy of this level and nature is simply not a communal activity, even if sometimes done in communal settings (if you can't appreciate the point there you are not really ready or fit for philosophy).

Communal feelings are a trap for the unwary. Sometimes it's necessary to make the unwary aware.

[David Quinn]

I think this thread is a classic litmus test type thread, where the responders to Laird's appeal reveal their level of understanding of the objectives of this forum and the subject of spiritual development. Very interesting.

I agree with that. It is always interesting to see what surfaces in these sorts of threads. It can be quite revealing, both in a positive and a negative sense.

-

[David Quinn]

Just for the record, Laird, I agree with Dan and others that you were the wrong guy to jettison. But these fellows are trying to manage a system of thought, and a place where that style of thinking goes on, which they have worked very hard for. They are not about to let a sort of an internal putsch take place under their noses, and see the whole purpose of the forum redirected. This is a basic Machiavellian law of all human systems, and is a clear demonstration of how power functions. I think the power behind this decision is most likely Kevin, that is my intuitive sense.

Intuitions can be misleading. It's been my baby from the start.

This is what gurus and in this case 'thought-gurus' do, you see, within absolutist thinking systems.

It is what any community does that possesses values.

Even artistic communities place limits on what is considered acceptable behaviour. For example, if a bozo were to turn up drunk, tearing down canvasses and wanting to talk about football all the time, I doubt that he would be made welcome.

Absolutist thinking, in my opinion, is a disease, and such a common one that most people have it, to one degree or another.

Including yourself, of course.

The only way to escape absolutist thinking is by breaking out of all delusion and immersing oneself in the Infinite. Absolutist thinking, when performed wisely, is a stepping stone to that end. Everyone else remains a victim of absolutist thinking, even the relativists (who necessarily make an absolute out of their relativism).

Alex Jacob looks upon all that is happening here, and sees how 'story' functions, and just notices the way that people get captured by their ideas and by their story. He can really do no more except try to flit about, to dance sometimes seriously, sometimes lewdly like some gilded tinkerbell satyr with an erection the size of a boys arm. Alex Jacob listens too to all your reasonings, sees you too solidify a story about yourself, and he says 'bravo!' and 'cheerio!', because we all have to have some sort of guiding story, and martyrdom, in combination with a sense of injustice has served many people in the past and still does today.

Well, let's just hope you don't remain captured by this particular story that you have woven and solidify within it.

-

[Carl G]

Which is it, Elizabeth, the vote doesn't matter or it does?

Please tell me that you know the difference between a discussion and a tally of how many people hold a particular opinion.

Elizabeth, I really don't appreciate your condescension here. I know you know that by vote I meant opinion. Opinion as in discussion.

[Lydiia Knightjoy]

I object to being represented as youthful from the perspective of philosophical immaturity and then to be further misrepresented as infantile.

you don't address this core problem of refusing to leave embryonic consciousness behind.

I'm sure there's going to be a sperm reference in the next post.

a 14-year-old who thinks he knows everything and yet knows nothing.

No doubt, this is the view of the mob at Olio.

GF is not a community. I can't emphasise this enough because it is quintessentially important.

--Rowden

It is what any community does that possesses values.

--Quinn

[Leyla Shen]

So, you think that Laird, failing to gain the attention you believe he craves, through his compelling postings, threw up his hands and consciously decided that risking being booted from this forum which is an important part of his (online) life, by provoking David and others, would be worth it if others would come and stroke his ego for a day or two? I hope you are further along on the path to Enlightenment than you are on the path to using logic properly.

[laughs] Had you an independent mind of any sort, you'd be quite embarrassed.

From what I know of Laird personally, and what he knows of me, I’m sure he at least knows exactly what I meant despite your silly attempt to thrust your own moronic logic into my mouth. Certainly, he doesn’t need you to speak to me on his behalf. This I expect him, as I do any sane individual, to take responsibility for.

[xerox]

...

[Jason]

Two things that are probably worth addressing: 1) despite what a couple of you think, I have not specifically supported Laird in this matter, I have simply clarified my position on matters of banning people. I understand Dave's reasons whilst holding a different attitude to what response is appropriate;

It's interesting just how much you and David seem to disagree on these issues. A mere political difference or does it have philosophical implications? Here's what you wrote in another thread(my bolding):

I will not ban people simply for being foolish in their opinions. If a person engages in obvious trolling behaviour, and that constitutes the greater part of their posting behaviour, they will likely get themselves banned. But it would surely be utterly tyrannical to ban people on the lone basis of keeping the quality of threads where I'd like them to be.

2) GF is not a community. I can't emphasise this enough because it is quintessentially important. If you have this attitude towards it, you are bringing an entirely unwelcome and philosophically and spiritually corrosive mindset to the place. This, in fact, is part of the reason that Dave has moved Laird on (and part of the reason I closed WM down). Philosophy of this level and nature is simply not a communal activity, even if sometimes done in communal settings (if you can't appreciate the point there you are not really ready or fit for philosophy).

Communal feelings are a trap for the unwary. Sometimes it's necessary to make the unwary aware.

That's ironic because David's actions amount to trying to make this place more communal. He's the one trying to force a common mindset. If, as is often said around here, philosophy is really, deeply, about individuals, then Laird should be seen and treated as just another individual on GF. He shouldn't be treated any differently and the admins should be very cautious in using their powers in ways that elevate them above the other individuals here.

Reading the "Introduction and Explanation" section of the forum I can't help but think that David is contravening the forum's charter. You need to change it, maybe you should include a disclaimer like "*despite all the talk of fearless bloody no rules discussion expounded upon above, David Quinn reserves the right to remove members whose views he disagrees with."

[Laird]

Trevor, I would consider following David's advice to leave for a year or so, and then return, if I thought that there was a significant chance that I would return as a person more in line with QRSH doctrine than I have already acknowledged myself to be in the "Common ground" thread. As it stands, the likelihood is that if I returned I would again earn David's ire for posting in much the same fashion as I have already been doing, and probably again be told to leave. I'd rather resolve this once and for all, here and now.

David, in the light of my comments above, I have a reaction to your concluding sentence:

So unless you have something radically different to offer

I have other thoughts, beliefs, opinions and values to offer, but they are not radically different than what I have already offered.

we really should put an end to the saga now.

That is and always has been entirely in your hands. I will continue to participate whilst I'm able. This thread was largely directed at you in an attempt to persuade you to reconsider your decision, because Dan doesn't support my being told to leave and I would guess that whilst Kevin supports you, he wouldn't have arrived at the decision to tell me to leave on his own. If it were the case that the majority of the community here wished me to leave, I would probably strongly consider it - imposing oneself where one isn't wanted is often counterproductive - but that's not the case: many people have supported me, and so I feel encouraged to continue for as long as I'm able to.