Slavedom

[Iolaus]

B,

It all revolves around whether or not one is willing to stop worrying about the future (food, shelter) and stop worrying about your past (family, friends). Something about God dressing the lilies of the fields and feeding the birds of the sky.

I don't object, and I certainly think that I need to be prepared to die, to fail. But for some reason I think that I have been called to survive, perhaps to help some younger people survive. I want to see this thing through. But to each his own.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: His approach was not to make a strategy for creating a community. The egoless state does not follow strategies but prajna, the heart-wisdom.

Diebert: Here's Mikiel's strategy over the years as far as I could read it:

-"facilitated several seminars on intentional community"
-locally publishing "essays on intentional community"
-organizing "meditation and dialogue circles as an awakened teacher"
-those circles set up "on all the several properties where I rented".
-being known as having "leadership in that realm." [creating communities]

As far as I can tell, these are the results of his community, not the strategy you imagine that brought it into being.

If you're involved in this stuff over a period, one bounds to run in to some opportunity. That's how things work. Conscious or subconscious planning or homing into, it doesn't matter. And again, I don't oppose it as such, I just find it laughable to call it non-strategy as if there must be a written out "master-plan" before it can be called strategy, as if one has to start calculating numbers before ego gets involved. Hah!

I think you are mistaking the results for a strategy.

sam: Luck is luck and many people experience it. But you can't make luck into a strategy.

Diebert: No, but I wasn't making it into something else - Mikiel did. For him it became a 'sign'. And it's a sign alright - a sign of his involvement and desire all along. He was "buying lottery tickets" quite loyally, see the list above. Why making it into something more special or 'divine' than it really is? It's all down to earth stuff, really.

Why not let him decide what his experience means to him? Why should your cynicism being the governing idea for his experience?

sam: He did have a vision; that's the whole point. You want to discount his vision based on your interpretation of his "luck." He wasn't preaching luck which is your ego trying to wrap itself around prajna. Some things are not explainable to the ego. I have had that experience and you say you've had it too. So why can't you accept that he can have it as well?

Diebert: It's not really my interpretation, but Mikiel's: "creating this community was, in the best sense, "meant to be." (In religious terms, it was clearly "the will of God", and as both of us had experienced surrender of the "personal will" into the Grace of Divine union it was perfectly natural for this Trust to manifest with mikiel as First Trustee."

Like I said, I have had those kind of experiences too. You said you have had them but you don't believe he can have them. Why not?

So he ran into good fortune, who knows which angels or demons to thank, or which contracts were signed in whose blood. It doesn't matter - it's just no particular sign of liberation or understanding. It's no particular better strategy, not a bad one either but only disguised behind a facade in this case.

He never said it was a sign for you or anyone else, he simply recognized the working out of his vision. Why begrudge him what he sees? He is not asking for your belief in any case. Don't believe him. But do you need to attack him so everyone will believe you?

It seems you haven't gotten a clue yet what I'm trying to point at. Better leave it at that, some things are not explainable indeed to everyone at all times.

One of us clearly is missing something important. That's okay. Just tame your hostility, it reflects poorly on you.

[samadhi]

Carl,

sam: Surrender ...

Carl: ...is an agenda.

Depends on whether one is doing it for some other purpose, like to become enlightened.

sam: ... is about letting go of strategy.

Carl: That is a strategy.

It can be, sure. It can also be spontaneous.

sam: Trying to behave in a selfless manner is kind of a contradiction. I'm sure people try it; I mean after all, this is what religion has been teaching forever.

Carl: You knock trying but have you ever tried it?

Everyone tries something. I'm not knocking trying, only the idea that imitation is what enlightenment is about.

What, you think being selfless being comes naturally?

It is a product of realization, not a cause of it.

sam: But the problem with it is, which religion never acknowledges, is that it is essentially putting the cart before the horse, which is why it always fails in the end.

Carl: You blame trying for the failure of persons to behave in a selfless manner?

No, only the idea that selflessness is a behavior to learn. It isn't.

sam: You don't become selfless by behaving selflessly, you behave selflessly by becoming selfless.

Carl: These can be the same, or not. You are not behaving specifically enough.

Give it a shot if that's what you want.

sam: Egos try to imitate the behavior they seek to emulate but selfless behavior is not about imitation.

Carl: Are egos the only operators within people?

It depends. That which recognizes ego is not itself ego.

sam: Without being sourced in "no self", the stress of trying to be what one isn't inevitably leads to some manner of breakdown.

Carl: This is your story and you are welcome to it. Except, there is no you or your. Okay, it's one of God's stories and He's welcome to it. Wait, there can be no He, either. It's one of cause and effect's stories...

Ah, another advocate of causation! lol ...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As far as I can tell, these are the results of his community, not the strategy you imagine that brought it into being.

Uhmm, no, this was taken from his own story from the period before and during the time he met his benefactor. When are you gonna actually read it instead of rearranging the story how you see fit?

Why not let him decide what his experience means to him? Why should your cynicism being the governing idea for his experience?

I'm just restating his own words, most of the time at least and certainly this time about the lucky draw. You might not like my translation of course so you dismiss it. I think I was fairly accurate though and tried to help the doubter to see the underlying patterns.

[sue hindmarsh]

Diebert wrote:

Before people will start to imagine an alliance of some kind,

Indeed! – but remember:the Southern Hemisphere is mine, you can have the Northern. ; )

I don't agree with the idea of people getting "suckered" by Mikiel. Not in the sense of intentional deceit. He doesn't seem to be the type, I see some kind of innocence, mostly unawareness of the traps he keeps digging for his own mind.

I also see him mostly as an innocent. He reminds me of a child going through the 'terrible-two' stage. But there is more to him than just that. I think his mind is compartmentalized so that he is mentally and emotionally inflexible when he is dealing with spiritual and status matters, but when it comes to situations where lawyers, relationships and business are involved, I think then he is much more mature and worldly-wise, as seen below.

Mik: We spent about $8000 on a lawyer who specalized in intentional community land trust legal documents

And, as you itemised, he is quite capable of setting in action and developing numerous strategies. He’s also shown himself capable of establishing and maintaining a relationship with his wife, Sybil:

Mik: My wife lives in Eugene. We "visit" when I come to town.... And I use her wireless computer connection. Her name is Sybil. She lives up to it. We were married (in '00) after nearly two years of living as above apart but "visiting."

So, even though he displays great immaturity, it is also clear that he does have access to a more mature part of his mind – it’s just that he won’t put it to work to help the immature side develop.

With this in mind, I continue to conclude that he did sucker the wheelchair-guy, for somewhere in his mind he would have seen the possibilities that guy was going to provide for him. AND, more importantly, he continues to sucker himself - along with anyone that has dealings with him - whilst he persists in not looking closer at the workings of his own mind. And he is capable. He just needs to first want to do so.

Therefore, his unconsciousness can be excused, but his consciousness cannot.

[sue hindmarsh]

Diebert wrote:

Without intending it he [Mikiel] did supply a way out of financial slavedom: founding a cult of some kind. What if Kevin would start teaching more on his idea of independent estates based on rationality. Give some workshops, spread the ideas around, profiling himself as the Main Man. This way he will run into benefactors sooner or later, as many rich people are literary waiting for a worthy cause to give their money to.

And indeed: with most gifts there comes a demand, a share, an expectation attached. Unspoken or not: it's rarely absent. The law of exchange is real.

True. When I hear people speak of ‘a group of individuals’, alarm bells go off in my head. ‘A group of individuals’ – what a joke!

[Carl G]

Would gathering of individuals be as funny? How about a collection ? Gaggle?

Actually, group is not illogical, therefore no laughs there.

[sue hindmarsh]

Carl,

You sound like you've missed the point. And that is not at all funny.

The world is full of 'joiners' - so full that even the idea of the 'individual' is considered archaic.

[brokenhead]

Carl,

You sound like you've missed the point. And that is not at all funny.

The world is full of 'joiners' - so full that even the idea of the 'individual' is considered archaic.

By whom? You are obviously not American.

[BMcGilly07]

Carl,

You sound like you've missed the point. And that is not at all funny.

The world is full of 'joiners' - so full that even the idea of the 'individual' is considered archaic.

By whom? You are obviously not American.

To go about being an individual in America there are a few things you must do. First you must decide if you wish to be economically individuated or socially. If the former you must sign up with the Republicans, if the latter then off to the Democrats; if both then Libertarian is the way to go. Next, you must take a long hard think as to whether or not you want others to know you are an individual. If you want to shock others, then go to Hot Topic and paint your fingernails black. If you are white and want to let others know how 'hard' or 'tough' you are, then turn on MTV and BET and see what latest baggy clothes are in style. However, if all of this talk of individuality is too taxing on oneself, you can always just see what your friends are doing and follow suit. But above all, never let anyone tell you how to be an individual. It is considered bad form to listen to another without first having opened your mouth.

note: edited choice of words

[samadhi]

Diebert,

Diebert: Here's Mikiel's strategy over the years as far as I could read it:

-"facilitated several seminars on intentional community"
-locally publishing "essays on intentional community"
-organizing "meditation and dialogue circles as an awakened teacher"
-those circles set up "on all the several properties where I rented".
-being known as having "leadership in that realm." [creating communities]

sam: As far as I can tell, these are the results of his community, not the strategy you imagine that brought it into being.

Diebert: Uhmm, no, this was taken from his own story from the period before and during the time he met his benefactor. When are you gonna actually read it instead of rearranging the story how you see fit?

Well, let's see. He facilitated seminars, published essays, organized and led satsangs and generally took a leadership role. They are a result of his involvement with communities. His specific community probably grew out of his leadership role. So what exactly are you objecting to?

sam: Why not let him decide what his experience means to him? Why should your cynicism being the governing idea for his experience?

Diebert: I'm just restating his own words, most of the time at least and certainly this time about the lucky draw. You might not like my translation of course so you dismiss it. I think I was fairly accurate though and tried to help the doubter to see the underlying patterns.

I was objecting to your hostility, not your take on him per se. You seem to want to be the arbiter of his experience and put it in the most cynical of terms and you insist you must be right. Why do you think you know his experience better than he does?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

He facilitated seminars, published essays, organized and led satsangs and generally took a leadership role. They are a result of his involvement with communities. His specific community probably grew out of his leadership role. So what exactly are you objecting to?

If you don't see how these activities are part of earlier visions, plans and a strategy (interest, focus combined with actions that lead closer to it) then I don't know how to explain it further. Once you'd agree there was a strategy, a modus operandi at work, you could see how that was slowly leading to creation of networks of people and contacts that sooner or later would facilitate his vision one way or another. It just happened to happen as he described, just one of the many ways these things could happen. It might be wonderful for him but take on step back and it becomes quite ordinary and not really different from other ideas talked about in this thread.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

If you had said it like that in the first place, I would never have objected. You haven't judged him here but just said what you think. There's a big difference and I hope you can appreciate it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You only don't object now because I painstakingly descended a thousand steps back to go over it word by word, spelling the issue out for you and probably boring a dozen others to death.

There's no difference at the bottom with my first post because what I just wrote implies Mikiel is really lost on the issue. And as I said I ('m a)like him which made me come on as strong as possible. Seeing he reacted with such rather sad, cultist condemnations, hell included, at least it made the intended impact! What he does with it - hard to tell.

Truth works so unexpectedly, one can only hope it might nag him in bed at night once in a while :)

[samadhi]

Diebert,

You only agree now because I painstakingly descended a thousand steps back to go over it word by word, spelling the issue out for you and probably boring a dozen others to death.

I never said I agreed with you. I pointed out that the cynicism and hostility in your original post was no longer present. You were simply discussing what you saw instead of projecting character flaws and nefarious motives onto him.

If the process was painstaking, well, your attachment to judging him had a lot to do with it.

There's no difference at the bottom with my first post because what I just wrote implies Mikiel is really lost on the issue.

See, now you are going back to judging him. You don't need to do that, it detracts from what you just wrote. But I guess you're attached to feeling superior.

And as I said I ('m a)like him which made me come on as strong as possible. Seeing he reacted with such rather sad, cultist condemnations, hell included, at least it made the intended impact! What he does with it - hard to tell.

You created conflict, great. Not really hard to do, is it, nor very productive. But always great for the ego.

Truth works so unexpectedly, one can only hope it might nag him in bed at night once in a while :)

Give me a break. You get to feel better than by judging him, that's all that's going on here.

[Carl G]

Carl,

You sound like you've missed the point. And that is not at all funny.

The world is full of 'joiners' - so full that even the idea of the 'individual' is considered archaic.

When I hear people speak of ‘a group of individuals’, alarm bells go off in my head. ‘A group of individuals’ – what a joke!

Yes, I guess I did miss your point. You meant there could hardly be found today enough true individuals to make a group. I thought you meant that group of individuals was a contradiction of terms, which is actually slightly humorous if individuals is defined in a certain way. In any case, Brokenhead is right, many Americans do consider themselves individuals. Are they? Depends on definition. I actually think this is a good topic in itself, what is an individual -- from a Genius perspective -- and how best does one go about being one in today's "joiner" society. And no, I don't think this is being covered in Ryan's "Dumpster Diving for Sages" thread or Kevin's "Raise a Family in the Arizona Desert" (this) thread.

[Iolaus]

Carl,

It's simple. In individual thinks for himself.

(And, slightly irrelevant but for the record, I am sick of the pretentious and silly use of the word 'individual.' When the word 'person' will do. As in, "I saw the individual running from the crime scene." Yuck.)

[sue hindmarsh]

Iolaus,

You first describe an 'individual' as someone who "thinks for himself". But then you write, "I am sick of the pretentious and silly use of the word 'individual.' When the word 'person' will do".

Are you saying that every person is an individual - thinking for himself?

[Iolaus]

Oh, not at all. But here in the US, the word individual has become misused a lot. It irritates me. But it is not relevant to the point about what an individual is. Which, by the way, is a correct use of the word.

[sue hindmarsh]

Iolaus,

Have you read BMcGilly07's post:

To go about being an individual in America there are a few things you must do. First you must decide if you wish to be economically individuated or socially. If the former you must sign up with the Republicans, if the latter then off to the Democrats; if both then Libertarian is the way to go. Next, you must take a long hard think as to whether or not you want others to know you are an individual. If you want to shock others, then go to Hot Topic and paint your fingernails black. If you are white and want to let others know how 'hard' or 'tough' you are, then turn on MTV and BET and see what latest baggy clothes are in style. However, if all of this talk of individuality is too taxing on oneself, you can always just see what your friends are doing and follow suit. But above all, never let anyone tell you how to be an individual. It is considered bad form to listen to another without first having opened your mouth.

Do you agree with his observation?

[Iolaus]

Well, it was an amusing bit of sarcasm, but I don't suppose people here are significantly different than in other places. At least we sill more or less have free speech, which I understand is no longer true in Canada.

[sue hindmarsh]

Iolaus: an amusing bit of sarcasm

So you think that Bryan (BMcGilly07) wasn't being serious when he wrote that post?

Looking at his other work, I don't believe he was just mucking around. I think he takes this subject seriously. But even if he wasn't being serious, his post rings true - don't you think?

[sue hindmarsh]

Carl wrote:

You meant there could hardly be found today enough true individuals to make a group. I thought you meant that group of individuals was a contradiction of terms, which is actually slightly humorous if individuals is defined in a certain way.

Your first idea was correct. And yes, it is "humorous" when 'individual' is "defined in a certain way". What way were you thinking?

I actually think this is a good topic in itself, what is an individual -- from a Genius perspective -- and how best does one go about being one in today's "joiner" society. And no, I don't think this is being covered in Ryan's "Dumpster Diving for Sages" thread or Kevin's "Raise a Family in the Arizona Desert" (this) thread.

It is a good topic, but we haven't gone off the subject matter of this thread. Kevin wrote, "The truth is that most people are willing slaves" - and we continue to unravel why that is so. For one thing, we know that you can’t possibly be a willing slave and an individual at the same time. To enslave yourself willingly, you’d either have to ditch the individuality – or it was never present in the first place.

[brokenhead]

For one thing, we know that you can’t possibly be a willing slave and an individual at the same time. To enslave yourself willingly, you’d either have to ditch the individuality – or it was never present in the first place.

But we know no such thing. There is a person's dharma which must be fulfilled. Are you arguing acting in accordance with your duty is willing slavedom? That is patently false. To enslave yourself unwillingly is to ditch the possibility of individuality. To fulfill your dharma willingly is the path to freedom and individuality. To avoid dharma is to wind up the same as everyone else who avoids it, running from something and having no prospect of individuality and happiness.

[Iolaus]

Carl,

For one thing, we know that you can’t possibly be a willing slave and an individual at the same time.

But what if you're an unwilling slave? (like me)

Sue,

So you think that Bryan (BMcGilly07) wasn't being serious when he wrote that post?

Looking at his other work, I don't believe he was just mucking around. I think he takes this subject seriously. But even if he wasn't being serious, his post rings true - don't you think?

Of course he was serious. It rings true for lots of people, yes, but the way out isn't as easy as finding a smaller group to emulate and then patting oneself on the back, now, is it?