Judging Others

[skipair]

I like judging other's skills when I'm more skilled at them in something. I get to play teacher and they learn something.

I like it even better when others judge me when they're are more skilled, because then *I* learn something.

It must be wonderful being the dumbest guy on the planet. So many people to learn from!

[mikiel]

One glaring difference between myself and Mikiel is that he's a hypocrite and I'm not. He philosophically spurns judgement of others, yet his posts are chock full of that very thing. What's remarkable is that he is - seemingly - utterly oblivious to this fact. This speaks to the level of consciousness a person brings to their engagement of others and the world generally. Of course, he's not alone in falling into that trap - anyone who speaks against judgements must, of necessity, fall into it eventually. It seems so obvious and yet people seem not to see it - or could it be they're just pretending not to for various reasons?

There is a difference between post enlightenment discenment and egocentric judgement which self righteously condems others based on bigotry, personal bias, brain programing (pre-awakening conditioning), dogma, etc. such as you constantly display here in the most arrogant way.

What's remarkable is that you are - seemingly - utterly oblivious to this fact.

I judge (i.e., discern) that you are a hateful bigot. It is obvious and you have never made a case to the contrary. Also that you think enlightenment is a matter of reason and logic, ignoring what I have said on the subject and the testimony of enlightened mystics from all major traditions... whom I have quoted, to the contrary.

It is a matter of discenment spoken truly (radically honestly) post awakening, that you have no idea what enlightenment actually is.

I challenge you... how is this hypocricy?

The irony is that pre-awakeing, one *must* judge from egoic perspective... your very limited experiential base.

Post-awakening, one has his own history of his egoic illusions from which to judge (discern) others' egocentric perspectives, like yours... written all over you.
But, one also then has the contrast of having *transcended* the egoic illusion of personal "selfhood" so one can actually see what the pre-awakening perspective is missing....

The "bubble of separate self" having popped... leaving our true state of identity, cosmic, enlightened God consciousness...
the missing ingredient in the philosophy of enlightenment as presented here in this forum as the only "truth"... the dogma of the cult.
mikiel

[Dan Rowden]

One glaring difference between myself and Mikiel is that he's a hypocrite and I'm not. He philosophically spurns judgement of others, yet his posts are chock full of that very thing. What's remarkable is that he is - seemingly - utterly oblivious to this fact. This speaks to the level of consciousness a person brings to their engagement of others and the world generally. Of course, he's not alone in falling into that trap - anyone who speaks against judgements must, of necessity, fall into it eventually. It seems so obvious and yet people seem not to see it - or could it be they're just pretending not to for various reasons?

There is a difference between post enlightenment discenment and egocentric judgement which self righteously condems others based on bigotry, personal bias, brain programing (pre-awakening conditioning), dogma, etc. such as you constantly display here in the most arrogant way.

Yes there, is; I quite agree. I knew you'd claim the former for yourself. Your free to do that, just I'm free to reject it. I have a philosophy of sound judgement, not one on non judgement, so whilst I can be potentially found wanting in the soundness of my judgements, I cannot be found to be hypocritical for making them. That's a problem for the non-judgmental crowd.

What's remarkable is that you are - seemingly - utterly oblivious to this fact.

There are certainly some things, and some people, I would be happy to be oblivious of.

I judge (i.e., discern) that you are a hateful bigot.

And that proves to me, unequivocally that your capacity for judgment is non existent, because I know that I am not. More than that, I know that my philosophical positions do not suggest such things other than to those who wish it to be so. i.e. hateful bigots.

It is obvious and you have never made a case to the contrary.

Hey, pal, you're the one making that accusation - the onus is on you to make the case. Are not be able to see such a remedial point?

Also that you think enlightenment is a matter of reason and logic, ignoring what I have said on the subject and the testimony of enlightened mystics from all major traditions... whom I have quoted, to the contrary.

Reason and logic are necessary and vitally important tools for the attainment of spiritual awareness. They are not, however, the be all and end all - and I, nor anyone here, has ever said they were.

It is a matter of discenment spoken truly (radically honestly) post awakening, that you have no idea what enlightenment actually is.

Interesting - you make this claim for yourself but disavow my right to make it of my own judgements. That's a stalemate if ever I saw one.

I challenge you... how is this hypocricy?

You expressed a philosophy of non-judgement. Now, after the fact you are adding a nifty caveat. Not much I can do about that except disagree with your estimation of yourself. That would be stalemate number 2.

The irony is that pre-awakeing, one *must* judge from egoic perspective... your very limited experiential base.

Well, that certainly would be incredibly ironic given that the ego perspective no longer exists with awakening.

Post-awakening, one has his own history of his egoic illusions from which to judge (discern) others' egocentric perspectives, like yours... written all over you. But, one also then has the contrast of having *transcended* the egoic illusion of personal "selfhood" so one can actually see what the pre-awakening perspective is missing....

Wouldn't it be simper to just say that one's judgement case to have their source in ego?

The "bubble of separate self" having popped... leaving our true state of identity, cosmic, enlightened God consciousness...

So, you're a tube of spiritual Clearasil, then?

the missing ingredient in the philosophy of enlightenment as presented here in this forum as the only "truth"... the dogma of the cult.

I don't have any beliefs so I'm not sure how I could have any dogmas.

[Alex Jacob]

[Uh-oh, Micky Eel's back. Dan's got his hands full...]

"If you wish to talk about Ryan's method of engagement and its utility - or lack thereof, as you see it - that would make perfect sense. However, couching matters in the language of "tolerance" invariably leads to problems".

You take up one aspect and rail against it so to avoid addressing the content of that post. This seems to me pure tactic, to avoid the issue. You will go on this way, stretching it out, until we are far away from the original point and you have brought up 100 other issues.

Originally, I saw elements in Ryan's ideas with inquisitional tones. The result of his inquisition (a small cabal, a group-decision) was to boot someone off the forum. Reading what those Grand Thinkers wrote, you will find in it essential intolerance, I submit.

I believe that most anyone reading him here sees what I am referring to. I defined part of this as 'intolerant' in the classic sense (which was not at all the ridiculous 'sense' you construed as a tactic to avoid a serious look at the ideas I presented, again, all that is diversionary, and a waste of time, one of your specialities).

The tolerance I am speaking of is expressed in part by the following:

"That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time".

Draft of Bill of Religious Freedom (Thomas Jefferson)

More on Toleration.

[brokenhead]

you'd simply tolerate the ideas of a pedophile

I would. I would tolerate their ideas so long as they didn't act upon them.

I understand that point, but I'm not entirely convinced by it. Actions arise out of ideas. What I see in that argument - perhaps falsely - is that one would not act unless the pedophile did. Which is kind of like saying you'd let your child get sodomized to demonstrate your tolerance for ideas. Doesn't it make more sense to circumvent action by trying to alter the thinking?

Obviously, if you don't know about the ideas, you have no choice but to tolerate them. In other words, there are pedophiles out there and that fact alone leaves you powerless to prevent them from acting on their impulses. Now when Carl says "acting upon them," does that include setting up a members-only website promoting child porno? What about NAMBLA? That's acting upon pedophilia - it's an entire organization set up devoted to it.

I think for most people, myself included, "toleration" means not going out of my way to snuff out pedohiles. I haven't fire-bombed NAMBLA headquarters, for instance. But if I were in a bar and I heard a couple of pedos talking about a child they had buggered together, I might find myself following them outside when they leave and kicking the shit out of them. So I guess that means I would tolerate the ideas unless they become expressed to the point where I know about them. Because actions do arise out of ideas. And all ideas are not equally tolerable.

[Tomas]

you'd simply tolerate the ideas of a pedophile
I would. I would tolerate their ideas so long as they didn't act upon them.


I understand that point, but I'm not entirely convinced by it. Actions arise out of ideas. What I see in that argument - perhaps falsely - is that one would not act unless the pedophile did. Which is kind of like saying you'd let your child get sodomized to demonstrate your tolerance for ideas. Doesn't it make more sense to circumvent action by trying to alter the thinking?


Obviously, if you don't know about the ideas, you have no choice but to tolerate them. In other words, there are pedophiles out there and that fact alone leaves you powerless to prevent them from acting on their impulses. Now when Carl says "acting upon them," does that include setting up a members-only website promoting child porno? What about NAMBLA? That's acting upon pedophilia - it's an entire organization set up devoted to it.

I think for most people, myself included, "toleration" means not going out of my way to snuff out pedohiles. I haven't fire-bombed NAMBLA headquarters, for instance. But if I were in a bar and I heard a couple of pedos talking about a child they had buggered together, I might find myself following them outside when they leave and kicking the shit out of them. So I guess that means I would tolerate the ideas unless they become expressed to the point where I know about them. Because actions do arise out of ideas. And all ideas are not equally tolerable.


..........


Be sure what you presume to-be hearing is on the same wavelength as what their conversation is, in reality, transpiring as a collusion between the two of them regarding a "consenting/non-consenting" minor.

I've been in many a bar where it is a couple cops going over testimony from the child, perp, parents etc. Also, the local district attorney chatting with a fellow lawyers/attorney rep. (Making the plea bargain deal go down).

24 years ago - I've firsthand knowledge of a 30-year-old woman boinking a 12-year-old boy. Both sides being "family friends" and this came out of nowhere. She owned a still thriving business, the boy had a dad but no mom around. To make it short, the dad found out a year later and confronted the woman - the relationship (molestation) ended right there. The hint came from me (where was he getting all his expensive "toys" from?) and I'd do it the same way again in a second. The boy ended up on cocaine, fathering a couple kids with young girls/women, his kids are now going through their mid-teens but fortunately the cycle of addictions seems to have been put to rest.

She still likes (molests) the 12-14 age group of young boys. When you have friends/connections in high places, a differing standard of justice takes hold. (Much the same as Bill Clinton stalking/forcibly raping girls/women in high school, college, as a governor, president... Ditto for Bush Senior and Junior with their predelection for young black boys and black girls). See Margie Schodinger case.

My girl-cousin's boy went through the same ordeal with another "older" mid-30s woman. Cocaine, some boozing, buying him fast cars complete with the cops-in-chase, ended up in the state pen for a year or so. Though I didn't turn the woman in on this instance, the grandma (my mom's sister), my Aunt Stella, asked me how he should get off of drugs. I went into my litany of the differing level of drug/sex abuse. In the end, he had a crack cocaine habit that he needed to resolve through a couple stints in drug rehab in conjunction with some prison time. One has to just do it, get yer ya-ya's out.

My drug classification pot, heroin, coke pills, hard liquor, beer, etc. varies as does the "consenting age" for sex with all the variations out there...

As far as kicking some ass regarding: sex perverts for doing underage kiddies / mental handicaps / physical handicaps / animals / elderly in nursing homes / the defenseless in homeless shelters / -- lemme know, as Jesse Jackson said 'Cut his nuts off'. But then again, he has fathered a few children with other women. And what physical retribution does one do to a woman pervert? A woman school teacher has "a free rein" in a child's early years of development.

Oh well, they're in every walk of life...


.

[mikiel]

Dan,
Your criticism was, in part, as follows:

One glaring difference between myself and Mikiel is that he's a hypocrite and I'm not. He philosophically spurns judgement of others, yet his posts are chock full of that very thing.

I replied that:

There is a difference between post enlightenment discenment and egocentric judgement

... claimed the former, and imputed the latter to you. I have consistently criticized what I see as rampant egocentricity on these boards, and I don't mind if it is called judgement or discernment.

You, in turn claim the opposite. I agree that this is a stalemate.

I do still have a question about your denial of the charge of bigotry, specifically, as I have charged, against women. I understand your belief that the feminine *aspect of people* is passive and emotional as contrasted with active and rational masculinity. But over and over on these boards you three make scathing derisive comments about women. If this is just hubris, and you really have respect for women, well... you certainly have had me fooled all along.

For instance... my most memorable instance:
After giving the link to that one clip where the asshole was obviously a woman-hating bigot, one of you said that was mild compared to your (collective?) much more radical views on women. I asked a couple of times if you guys were just fucking with me, but y'all stood your ground as if in actual support of this obvious and unquestionable bigotry, 'cept your version was more "radical" yet.

You may or not want to clarify this. I'm ok with leaving it at stalemate at this point.
mikiel

[Alex Jacob]

Mikiel writes:

"I do still have a question about your denial of the charge of bigotry, specifically, as I have charged, against women. I understand your belief that the feminine *aspect of people* is passive and emotional as contrasted with active and rational masculinity. But over and over on these boards you three make scathing derisive comments about women. If this is just hubris, and you really have respect for women, well... you certainly have had me fooled all along."

It would be nice if you would dig up specific quotes from statements you think are 'bigoted'. You say that 'over and over' these three make derisive comments about women, but I haven't heard such a comment from Dan in ages, nor much of one from David, and Kevin rarely touches on the subject. Sue has plenty of forceful things to say about women, and recently Ryan has gone well over the top with his 'soulless' comment. I have clearly defined what some have called a chauvinistic assessment of women, which I completely stand by as it is specific and limited.

Who and what are you talking about? If you are really interested in the subject, can you bring up some definite things, not just assertion and innuendo?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Alex,

The way you privilege your own platform (your whole tone is as a superior being offering crusts of bread to the ego-infested lowlifes) is so very similar to the classic dogma-driven religionist, with a Divine mandate to 'change' people, to conquer them and mold them. Your platform is extraordinary too because it is almost precisely the distortion of philosophy that is modern PR, psychological indoctrination, and a whole group of modern pseudo-philosophical and sociological ideas. With just a few minor twists you could literally turn yourself into a minor 'inquisitor'.

A wise man’s mind and an ignorant man’s mind operate very similar, except one is rational, while the other is not.

The first part is reasonable, the part about viruses attacking cells and 'inserting' themselves in the living material of another, is oddly perverse. But no one here calls you on it, and none of your mentors and guides (*bows*). You are going to define to me what is Philosophy and what philosophers do and don't do? The ultimate aim of involvement in ideas-wisdom-knowledge is to invade the brain of another and install one's ideas? You are talking about programming, son

.

Spreading wisdom is a lot like programming. One is causing another to change through a repetition of rational ideas, and it works like a sort of osmosis for potential minds.

'Tolerance' means having a kind of inner strength and trust (if you will) not only in yourself but in other people. 'Tolerance' in the world of ideas would mean being capable of putting up with someone whose opinions you genuinely disliked, and does not include invading them like a virus and setting up your idea structures in them.

I disagree, that is the entire purpose of the sage, his objective is to 'infect' potential minds with his poison for the heart. However, only some have a potential for being influenced by absolute rationality. And I consider truth as a sort of 'infection' because it basically transforms the 'infected' into a sort of mutant, an alien living among an irrational hive of base unconsciousness. However, I’m hoping the mutant will eventually become the norm.

Ryan's intolerance is of another order, and is destructive in the world of ideas.

Just for the record - I wasn’t the only one who thought Sam should be banned, as many of the other rational posters agreed with me - independently of my own view. As others have already stated, He was spamming the forum, as he was impossible to debate with. Kevin, David, Cory, Dan, Diebert, myself, and others all engaged with him, and discovered that he was fairly stuck in a deluded mindset. It would be the same thing if a devoted Christain came in here, and started making the argument that we should all believe in Jesus as our savior, and he kept repeating the same crazy argument over and over again. What is the point in having him around? We shouldn’t tolerant such blatant ignorance. He would need to move on, either on his own accord, or by the will of the forum’s guardians.

It is the same thing if a fool gets in your face, and starts talking nonsense, you have the right to cut him off, and tell him that you’re too busy to listen, and then you go about your business. It is not violent, but it is a form of intolerance because he has ignorantly invaded your personal intellectual space, and you have a right to defend it in a nonviolent manner.

It is the masculine mind putting its foot down in a sea of stupidity.

Skipair,

It must be wonderful being the dumbest guy on the planet. So many people to learn from!

The problem is that most dumb people never change, as they are incapable of learning. If all humans only had an equal potential for rationality, then I would be a very happy chap indeed!!! I would just jump onto the roof tops, screaming, "God Isn't dead!" "God Isn't dead!" Actually, I wouldn't do that, that's too absurd, but you get the idea.

[Carl G]

Ryan wrote:

many of the other rational posters agreed with me...Kevin, David, Carl, Dan, Diebert, myself, and others all engaged with him, and discovered that he [samadhi] was fairly stuck in a deluded mindset.

Yes, we did, quite, and found what you say. I still think it gauche to keep harping on it, though.

[Tomas]

Ryan wrote:

many of the other rational posters agreed with me...Kevin, David, Carl, Dan, Diebert, myself, and others all engaged with him, and discovered that he [samadhi] was fairly stuck in a deluded mindset.

Yes, we did, quite, and found what you say. I still think it gauche to keep harping on it, though.

Herr Ryan,

Herr Carl,


The One-Thousand Year Reich is alive, and doing quite well (thank you) on Genius Forum




.

[brokenhead]

Ha! Gauche. Perfect word choice!

[Shahrazad]

I even had to look it up. My excuse is that we don't use that word much in LA (Latin America).

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

Yes, we did, quite, and found what you say. I still think it gauche to keep harping on it, though.

I thought if I reaffirm whom I believe are some of the more dedicated writers to the cause of GF, then it might raise the bar a bit for some of the others. My reasoning is that if a distinction is made between the writers who are more rational than not, then it might draw attention to the difference between mediocre writing and serious writing. And the classification of different qualities of writing might cause everyone to focus a little harder on what separates clear rational arguments from complicated, greedy, and overly jokey writing.

I wanna raise the stakes a bit, and put more pressure on forum members. This place has grown a little to lazy, laid back, and passively mediocre.

And I'm not suggesting that I'm the pinnacle of enlightenment, I have already acknowledged that I'm not free of all imperfection, and so focusing on the qualities of great writing also causes myself to reflect back on many of my previous posts to analyze whether or not there were subtle degrees of emotionalism and incomplete thinking present.

[brokenhead]

This place has grown a little to lazy

That would be a little "too" lazy.

[Ryan Rudolph]

brokenhead,

That would be a little "too" lazy.

cute. ha ha (spoken in a monotone voice)

[mikiel]

Tomas,
Re: your statement,

The One-Thousand Year Reich is alive, and doing quite well (thank you) on Genius Forum

....

I know you only as a crackpot here, very damaged goods who likes to portray mikiel as an egomaniac... which is an understandable projection from your crippled soul... but...

I am very interested in this Arian Race superiority angle as part of the hate mongering dogma of this little cult. You know more about it that I, as I am relatively new here compared to the old-timer "brown-shirts" who are thoroughly indoctrinated into this site's "superiority" fanaticism.... besides the obvious "superiority of men over women."

Problem is, I know you are nearly 100 % into flaming, so I need a reality check here on how this forum is anti-Semitic... actually into the racist bigotry of Arian superiority.
Even tho you hate me... got any specifics, quotes or over-view perspectives to back up your statement above?

...Or is it just your usual bullshit drama without any substance at all?
(Seriously... I am investigating this place as a hate-mongering cult and would appreciate any real evidence you might provide.)
mikiel

[Shahrazad]

Mikiel says to Tomas:

I know you only as a crackpot here, very damaged goods who likes to portray mikiel as an egomaniac... which is an understandable projection from your crippled soul...

And this coming out of the same guy that complains about Dan's alleged moral condemnation of others? Sorry, but after this comment, you lost every right to continue to attack Dan in that way. You are the bigot.

-

[mikiel]

Mikiel says to Tomas:

I know you only as a crackpot here, very damaged goods who likes to portray mikiel as an egomaniac... which is an understandable projection from your crippled soul...

And this coming out of the same guy that complains about Dan's alleged moral condemnation of others? Sorry, but after this comment, you lost every right to continue to attack Dan in that way. You are the bigot.

-

It's about the difference between egocentric judgement, the only kind available to one in egoic consciousness, and discernment from a space of conscious equinimity.
You apparently have not experienced the latter, so can not discern the difference between discenment and bigoted judgement.

You might get a clue from reading a few of Tomas' dramatizations of me, then a few of my persistent inquiries of the Trio as to how their characterizations of women are not bigoted... which are consistently either ignored or dismissed without explanation.
See any difference?
m

[Shahrazad]

Mikiel,

It's about the difference between egocentric judgement, the only kind available to one in egoic consciousness, and discernment from a space of conscious equinimity.
You apparently have not experienced the latter, so can not discern the difference between discenment and bigoted judgement.

Yeah, I get it. You are enlightened, so when you put other people down using unflattering words, it's discernment. When QRS do the same, they are bigots. Gotcha. One set of standards for yourself, and another set for the triplets. How convenient.

Dan was right about you: you and him may both be bigots, but at least Dan is not a hypocrite. You cannot protest for being called a hypocrite, for that is what you are. It does not matter how you chop it, slice it or dice it.

-

[mikiel]

Mikiel,

It's about the difference between egocentric judgement, the only kind available to one in egoic consciousness, and discernment from a space of conscious equinimity.
You apparently have not experienced the latter, so can not discern the difference between discenment and bigoted judgement.

Yeah, I get it. You are enlightened, so when you put other people down using unflattering words, it's discernment. When QRS do the same, they are bigots. Gotcha. One set of standards for yourself, and another set for the triplets. How convenient.

Dan was right about you: you and him may both be bigots, but at least Dan is not a hypocrite. You cannot protest for being called a hypocrite, for that is what you are. It does not matter how you chop it, slice it or dice it.

-

Actually, I can clarify that I am not a bigot or a hypocrite. I have no interest in protesting your calling me a hypocrite.("...for that is what you are." (This is egoic judgement... quite obvious to anyone who has transcended it.

"This is who you are", as a statement of fact from someone who has no information at all about mikiel's truth... loss of personal identity... or a clue to what 'no identity' might mean as a reality (transformation) in your life[/b].... is absurd... totally ridiculous... and yet you, in egoic judgemental mode are oblivious to how off the wall you are.

This is a prime example of the false judgement in question here. And if you think your statement, "this is who you are" defines me more accurately than I present (no define-ing) myself... you are obviously deluded into believing, somehow, that you are the expert, the final reality check on 'who I am."
I Am God. So are you. But you clearly don't know it yet. You are not "enlightened," not yet awake to the One Identity (consciousness) in all.

So you ridicule me, projecting from your own somnambulistic walk as 'your personal identity'... and project it on me. It is not true, and I am the ultimate truth teller on the subject of who mikiel is... the local manifestation of God/dess, as I've said many times.

I hope you get over the dis-ease of egocentric judgemental condemnation soon. But I am not your doctor. My advice: Try a month of solitude in the wilderness of your choice.
mikiel

[David Quinn]

Mikiel certainly gets my vote as the most deluded individual on this forum. I'm just glad that I don't live near him; there seems to be an awful lot of violence simmering beneath the surface, just waiting to explode.

That's what tends to happen with "born-again" people who try to make a clean break from their past. They thrust themselves violently into a new mental space and rely on the hope that the strategy will last.

-

[Ramayana]

Mikiel certainly gets my vote as the most deluded individual on this forum.

I'll second that...

[Shahrazad]

Mikiel,

So you ridicule me, projecting from your own somnambulistic walk as 'your personal identity'... and project it on me.

You're the one who ridiculed Tomas. Tomas is an equal opportunity mocker; he mocks all of us, in a fun and harmless way. You however, do it with meanness, maybe even with a touch of hatred. Huge difference.

My advice: Try a month of solitude in the wilderness of your choice.

Darien it is!

-

[mikiel]

Mikiel certainly gets my vote as the most deluded individual on this forum. I'm just glad that I don't live near him; there seems to be an awful lot of violence simmering beneath the surface, just waiting to explode.

That's what tends to happen with "born-again" people who try to make a clean break from their past. They thrust themselves violently into a new mental space and rely on the hope that the strategy will last.

-

Hey, there was no "trying." I nearly drowned and washed ashore without an ego. What would it take to convince you that I am an absolute truth teller? (Rhetorical question.) know there is nothing I can say to break you out of your hypnotic belief in your-self... and "my-self" and all these ego-bound "selves." (It's just not true.)

I'll be the judge of who's deluded around here if I'm the subject. I have the sheepskin to prove my credentials...
' yada, yada,' and 22 yrs experince "judging"... lets call that discerning, as a psychotherapist...
who is deluded or not who comes to me for counseling.

I can actually put myself on the couch and ask, "How crazy am I to have had the life I've had... cosmic visions ans all?"
And my answer is.. Not allwho have cosmic visions are crazy. I have a large file history to back it up. Some who were actually genious but thot crazy by those judging from both inferior intellect and malfunctioning hateful souls...
some being those arrogant shrinks who only need five minutes to tell how the meds should be changed to keep these freaks under control... or properly sedated. Yes, I worked in that envoronment for several years.
David,
I can assure you and all others on this forum that I don't have any violence at all " simmering beneath the surface, just waiting to explode." You mistake my radically honest intensity in truth telling for a violent state of mind. Nothing could be further from the truth of who I am... God living here now as mikiel.
You clearly have no experience with being God locally*or how direct and searing this extreme honesty is in confrontation of egocentricity... like yours.

Enlightened ones are the beings in the universe "allowed" (by the Universe) to "use it"... radical honesty... frying egos on the universal Fire ... the purification it takes to lose 'personal.. separate identity'.. the final 'surrender' required for 'conscious unity' with God, the One Universal Being.

Get over it, robots! Your programing is only a temporary state of illusory separeteness... "units" programed by your life-experiences.

We forms are one Identity expressing as all this diversity.

mik- I - el