Analyzing the need for "QRS" on the forum:

[Ryan Rudolph]

It seems to me that many of the members here crave appearances by Kevin, David or Dan, perhaps because they are supposed to represent a sane rational wall of opposition to bad arguments, falsehoods, and irrational behavior. And perhaps because they are the official "admins" and "founders" of the forum.

However, I wonder whether the unenlightened ego needs the confrontation of a larger group that claims to be more wise than themselves? perhaps in the beginning, the ego needs overwhelming confrontation from a force that claims to be wise.

Because I wonder whether the construct "QRS" is better at promoting wisdom than one individual.

Perhaps a group has more power, more force to confront potential intellectuals. And perhaps potential intellectual see a larger force as more desirable to challenge because they want the big score of outwitting the best.

Because let us not forget that in the beginning there is a competitive drive in males simply to outdo what they believe is worthy opposition.

[Animus]

I don't really see the "need". As for desires, I guess that depends on what our goals are.

[Kunga]

PM

[skipair]

The whole basis of wisdom and living free is to use your own judgement, to do your own thing no matter what ANYONE else does. Don't worry about what ANYONE else is doing. You do what YOU think is right. How do you know what's right? Use your own judgement.

[DHodges]

I've been gone for a while. I just stopped in and I agree the place has deteriorated.

David Quinn, in particular took on a kind of bodhisattva role. He took it upon himself to act as a teacher, to get people started on the path of wisdom, truth and enlightenment. And he did it for years, in a way that astounded me with his seemingly infinite patience. If he has burned out on that - or moved on to something he feels is more productive - he certainly did quite a bit, and was quite an inspiration to me, although I have no desire to take on a bodhisattva role.

Dan Rowden, I believe, has been putting a lot of time into his Youtube videos and perhaps other projects. It's natural to explore other avenues to spread these ideas in the most effective way possible. Perhaps the GF format has outlived its usefulness, or perhaps it will rise again.

There were others that contributed greatly in the past. Marsha, in particular. She had great strength of character, and inspired me in a completely different way than Dan and David.

Those with the ability and desire to make GF what it was are a rare breed indeed.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

My interest in this forum was never about Quinn, Solway or Rowden. There were initially some other minds, now all but gone, as well as the overall subject matter, which attracted me here. So the question to me doesn't even arise, only in so far perhaps they are administrators in technical sense but as far as I see that just continues as usual.

There were quite some periods in the past years, lasting months to almost a year, were the board seemed less interesting, to me at least, with many good contributors disappearing or my mind focused on other ventures. If I visited at all in such periods I only clicked on one or two threads, ignoring dozens of others. And I still skim most entries so I wouldn't even know for sure when a "good period" would be actually there. At least I didn't post inane complaints about it like that depressed retard of a Marsha! What's the point. And yes I like her too.

This whole notion about the "quality" or "livelihood" of this forum doesn't make sense at all. If tomorrow the plug was pulled it wouldn't mean a thing to me. If it's still there I probably will visit again as it still provides a challenge to write coherent posts on the subject matters here. If not I'd probably write it elsewhere.

[DHodges]

There were quite some periods in the past years, lasting months to almost a year, were the board seemed less interesting, to me at least, with many good contributors disappearing or my mind focused on other ventures. If I visited at all in such periods I only clicked on one or two threads, ignoring dozens of others.

This happened to me as well, and I was never really sure if it was what was happening on the board itself or if it was how I was seeing it at that time.

[Pye]

At least someone has had the courage to say simply that he misses them.

However, it is unfortunate - and indicative - that this translates into the tanking of the value of the entire forum. A complaint pulled down by the weight of its own passivity.

[Carl G]

Who above has stated that he misses them?

I miss them.

[Pye]

Carl: Who above has stated that he misses them?

DHodges, implicitly.
And now Carl, explicitly.
I'd be fine with adding my name to this list as well, but it would have nothing to do with my own participation, thereafter or since.

[Ryan Rudolph]

The forum definitely had periods of intense fire, argument, debate and creativity. The huge problem is the lack of new members that show a genuine interest in finding truth in their lives. Many of the old members know all the ideas promoted on this forum, but I still feel there are plenty of patient posters who would stick with a geniunely interested thinker. Nick, Diebert, Dan, Cory and myself are just to name a few.

The youtube channel created by Dan and others was a great success in my opinion, especially if measured by the number of subscribers.

David, Kevin and Dan in particular did carry the torch at GF for many years, they added fuel to the fire here, and it is to be expected that their appearances would dwindle, especially since authentic searchers are not present on the forum these days.

Overall, this place has attracted a wide spectrum of intellectuals and thinkers, and I don't think any other forum has experienced such seriousness and dedication to truth in particular.

Perhaps, in the future, an influx of new searchers will emerge, and the fire of truth will burn bright once again here, or perhaps this forum is slowly burning out, like an old star that has burned bright for billions of years, but the weight of its own gravity is beginning to catch up with it until it implodes in on itself, living only the trace of a star, a trace left by a huge void, a trace of something great...

Every once and awhile I stop by this place, checking out the new posts, and commenting here and there, but the GF forum is currently a shell of its former self.

"if there are no students, there can be no teacher"

[Carl G]

I still feel there are plenty of patient posters who would stick with a geniunely interested thinker. Nick, Diebert, Dan, Carl, Cory, and myself are just to name a few.

Amen, brother. We're here, use us!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I think the "Have We Got Christianity Right?" thread is going very well. Animus and Nad are doing very well with each other, Both seem to be thinkers, and not in need of some guru figure to come in and dangle a carrot of almost-approval, nor to correct anything. Any corrections of thinking seem to be coming out in the thread. I am particularly impressed with Animus' contributions to that thread.

Don't let nostalgia sell the present short. It is a common human tendency to remember the past more fondly than the time was experienced when it was the present.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth,

Don't let nostalgia sell the present short. It is a common human tendency to remember the past more fondly than the time was experienced when it was the present.

Its much more than just nostalgia Elizabeth. The quality of the posts have suffered on GF for some time. I blame it on a lack of new members interested in truth to keep conversations fresh.

There are still some decent threads here and there, but I used to be able to find a decent thread every day, now I stop by every couple weeks, and sometimes nothing catches my interest.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Its much more than just nostalgia Elizabeth. The quality of the posts have suffered on GF for some time. I blame it on a lack of new members interested in truth to keep conversations fresh.

There are a few other takes possible to explain your observations. The Internet is a different place these days with the last five years a massive increasing participation of people who didn't have the means or interest to seek it out earlier. It's some sort of saturation that is like adding a lot of water to a tiny amount of wine. One can see it in all forums that are as long running as this one. Not many made it that far though.

Also the different nature of the web in recent years with its emphasis on video, quick comments, spreading out participation on countless blogs and sites plays a part. It all contributes in creating an audience that will not be encouraged to read and write patiently on a forum. To digest properly at least. The whole format might be at some point obsolete like most things on the Internet which all seem to have a relatively short half-life time.

People already a member for a longer time change as well. Some like to forever recycle their thoughts and theories, never changing a bit but a more wise nature will very naturally hesitate to return to the same discussions with the same type of participation. Resistance to moving on, to change approach or venue, to getting tired of tried and tested activities can be a warning. It can be a sign that someone is sticking to a familiar nest and the fear turns into irritation or negative outlooks. It's a very common process in people's lives around us and everybody would or at least should recognize the tendency in oneself.

In your first post from this thread you wrote:

However, I wonder whether the unenlightened ego needs the confrontation of a larger group that claims to be more wise than themselves? perhaps in the beginning, the ego needs overwhelming confrontation from a force that claims to be wise.

There's something to this. Not just individuals that make the claims but have some kind of name carved out for themselves. It helps if it includes decades of "experience" or media activities or exposure. Somehow this is experienced as more solid, more relevant than just a bunch of anonymous oracles?

This very name is a form of power. And it attracts challengers and people looking to emulate, to follow. All in all this is just human nature and not a bad thing to start with. Not sure about "overwhelming confrontation". It seems the dynamics are a bit more subtle here.

So, until someone of the regulars here have carved a name out with for example publications or even running a mid-size forum or blog on the topic of philosophy, running a cult or blowing oneself up in the name of the Absolute, the power-oriented people will not be impressed with their statements too much and what they miss is not the person or the wisdom but something else entirely!

[Matt Gregory]

The problem is that nobody here except for Kevin and David are interested in perfect wisdom. Nobody. Everybody on here merely uses truth as a means of entertaining themselves, but that's not good enough to actually get anywhere with it.

[Carl G]

The problem is that nobody here except for Kevin and David are interested in perfect wisdom. Nobody. Everybody on here merely uses truth as a means of entertaining themselves, but that's not good enough to actually get anywhere with it.

Matt, nice to see you again. How are things on high, up at the cloud line?

Although Kevin and David may be interested in perfect wisdom, it doesn't follow that the rest of us are merely using truth to entertain ourselves. There are many stages to the top of the mountain. Surely there are students of the truth at places other than near the top and at the bottom. In fact logically and practically it is so. Your sweeping statement therefore serves nothing. Perhaps having not acclimatized to the thin air where you are affects clear thinking?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Agreed Carl.

It may also look less intriguing because the process of becoming wiser is exciting, but the wiser one becomes, the more of a "been there, done that" feeling takes hold. Things look less brilliant when we already know them.

That said, I do agree that there are a lot of threads on here that would have been canned had the admins been paying as much attention as they used to, and a lot of people on here would have been banned had David remained on the forum.

[Robert]

One other aspect that may add to the sporadic nature of quality new threads is simply that there is a fairly large archive of previous topics. I spend a fair amount of time reading through old threads that interest me, where I find what I'm thinking about has already been discussed or covered in some way or another, and I'd imagine a lot of other people new to the forum do the same. It may be a worthwhile project to create a compilation of quality posts (like used to be done for the Genius newsletter) and maybe create a sub-forum of its own dedicated to chosen topics as suggested reading matter for newer members or visitors.

[Nick]

There are a lot of folks who visit this forum who's posts I love to read, and I'd love to see them post more. I'm not going to make a list, but it's enough to make this place by far one of the most thoughtful and stimulating communities on the net. Is there a lot of stupid bullshit that gets posted on here as well? Yes. Is the stupid bullshit increasing? Yes. Is it going to continue increasing? Yes. The internet is becoming more accessible to more and more people through out the world every day, and most people are not interested in philosophy and genuine thought. This place is not and will never be immune from the droves of people flooding the internet with their mindless ignorance. A David, Kevin, or Marsha wouldn't be able to change this.

[jupiviv]

The problem is that nobody here except for Kevin and David are interested in perfect wisdom. Nobody. Everybody on here merely uses truth as a means of entertaining themselves, but that's not good enough to actually get anywhere with it.

Quite right, although I would say, just Kevin.

The problem with David is, he comes down from heaven and then points to it, but Kevin talks down from heaven - this much is clear when you read their two books about wisdom. The clarity, brevity and efficiency with which Kevin expresses the deepest wisdom is amazing, and, when you really get down to it, it's the way you express your wisdom that indicates the level and depth of your commitment to it. Maybe I have a bias in saying this, but I don't think so.

I also hear some people talking about someone called "Marsha". I don't know an awful lot about her, but I've read some of her writings on David's site. I got the impression that she is basically an actor. Her version of "individuality" is the individuality that ultimately needs others, and therefore isn't individuality at all.

[jupiviv]

Jupiviv, true individuality not needing others? Are you sure about that?

Yes.

The only thing I here agree with you upon is your:

"wh en you really get down to it, it's the way you express your wisdom that indicates the level and depth of your commitment to it."

And even then, I'd replace 'commitment to it' with 'love of it'.

As I define love, it's the same as commitment, or valuing. There is no emotional element in it. In fact, ordinary people would deride such a kind of love, but it's the only true kind of love.

[jupiviv]

dejavu: Jupiviv, true individuality not needing others? Are you sure about that?

jupiviv: Yes.

How?

It comes down to how you define "individual" - I define it as what we really are, which ultimately is everything(God). I would say that the absolute individual is he who has absolutely no ego. Any person on the path to absolute individuality must have the goal of getting rid of the ego. Marsha Faizi's brand of individuality consisted of making a lot of show to boost her own ego, and thereby further increasing her delusion. It's similar to Ayn Rand's brand of individuality, and that of other modernists, post-modernists, etc.

What do you mean no emotional element?

It isn't love with the purpose of increasing one's ego - being happy, merging with others, being a part seeking another in order to be whole, etc. It's not really love at all - although it can be reached through the love of truth. Rather, it's beyond love, and beyond belief.

[Animus]

Ego is self-conception, and nothing but. There is no individuality without it.

Precisely, there is no individuality without it.

[jupiviv]

Ego is self-conception, and nothing but. There is no individuality without it. You are deluded.

I'm talking about the false ego, as opposed to the true ego, which is the absolute genius, Buddha, over-man, Brahman, God etc.