Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Diebert wrote:
Lets imagine a "technocratation" of our lives where technology and artificial chemistry would replace or facilitate current addictions to faith, entertainment, war, sex and various sentimental moods. What exactly is the loss from your perspective. Which reasons you have to worry? A decline in happiness, economy, thought or even art?
This forum was meant as a place to reflect on ultimate realities and enlightenment but not on the specific illness of a current culture or any dysfunctional behaviour which came yesterday and will be gone tomorrow. There are many other, more rewarding places to discuss all that of course. And if one believes all the many issues with the modern mind first have to be solved before any deeper experience and reality can be accessed, then that seems like the perfect excuse to me. A never ending pool of broken things to get distracted by, yay!
I noticed a contrast here where two declarative stances seem to crash up against one another. I guess the questions about technology and artificial chemistry as substitutes and replacements for addictions like sex and entertainment, war and sentimental moods, would have to be interrogated and brought up alongside such propositions as 'ultimate reality and enlightenment'. The question What exactly is the loss? does not seem like a very good one within that context.

Do you value, and does the enlightenment stance value 'happiness, economy, thought or even art'? Are you satisfied with chemically-induced 'happiness'? Is prosperity a measure to be considered along with 'enlightenment'? What value can 'thought' have (and what do you mean by the term?) when 'enlightenment' is held up as the truly valuable thing? What possible relevance does 'art' have in any of this for you?

Among many things, these are some of what is being questioned in this thread.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Again, Diebert, I find I am not moved much by your analysis.
That's because it was not supposed to get you moving at all. Obviously you can only absorb whatever is moving you.
What I note in it is its 'totalizing' quality, and a desire to carry out thorough devastation of another's position, stance or approach.
Thank you! That's called attempting to philosophize. But I've to warn you, it will never move you whatsoever!
it is my personal view that you are 'stuck' here.
That's hilarious coming from one of the most core, most voluminous and loyal poster on the whole forum who admits has little in common with it nevertheless. I think you are the definition of being "stuck" here. And also a walking, talking piece of irony to boot.
it is necessary intellectually to understand an entire sweep and movement from the Medieval world up into the present.
Even if that were so, you're not capable of such analysis. If you were not emotionally and rationally impaired you'd immediately realize how futile that particular understanding is in the context of self-knowledge. And here's why: once causality is understood fully (which you don't show any sign of) it's pretty well understood how the Medieval worldview has to have influence in the way we currently think and conceptualize. As do many, countless other things. And many more on top of that. But that's not the topic and while it might illuminate a few mysteries, it will not necessarily lead to self-knowledge in existential terms (the nature of self, world, experience and desire). The reason for that I can tell you as well: this knowledge has been the challenge from the very beginning of written and oral history. It takes only a little wisdom to realize how far back this goes, its universality and applicability. This is what makes spirituality "timeless". And the reason I quote that is that it doesn't mean it's without time but that time is bound up with the very consciousness one is getting to know.
You have begun to cross bounds in your moderation that indicate a tendency toward control: control essentially over the way someone thinks and views things.
Simple, civilized boundaries: calling someone a fuckup, bitch or involving their mother in the discussion is just too low grade for me to tolerate from anyone, when I catch it in the act at least. No matter who is the but of the joke. And I believe that's a reasonable limit which doesn't have to be spelled out or justified at all. It also invokes a charged atmostphere which might tempt everyone else (including myself) to use even harsher language. Something all too human. But to call that an example of controlling is really further evidence of your mental blocks and, I must say, serious lack of class.
The references even to other forums seems a wee bit over the top. Do you patrol cyberspace? How shall one look at that?)
You invited me at least twice per email to visit the forums where you were writing, to read along, supplying even the URL's of your various posts and heated disagreements. This fact makes your question on patrolling more evidence of something wrong with your basic memory. But more likely it's just a sign of emotion overruling any chance you might have on being a basic rational, decent human. This is the reason that all of your discussion must end in disaster. You need to start understanding how you are ruled by emotions for so long, that you don't even notice what they do and you block any pointing out by applying a clever trick: the one of looking down upon others as beings who cannot ever, possibly, teach you something important about your self that you didn't know yet. A very safe position.

By the way, can we at least agree that your story about wife and kid is a botched attempt to write more fictional stories here?
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Diebert wrote:By the way, can we at least agree that your story about wife and kid is a botched attempt to write more fictional stories here?
Let me get this straight: Are you saying that I am not married? Or are you saying that you think I have stated that her child (not mine) is actually mine?

You are getting a bit deranged with this but I am willing to help you sort this out. Maybe it will help in other areas. Personally, I think you have 'Alex Jacob on the brain' and these things have begun to obsess you. But let's get this one out of the way.

What would settle this doubt (about my matrimonial status) for you? What evidence do you require?

Remember: This is by your request.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Let me get this straight: Are you saying that I am not married?
I'm saying that most of what you have written on this forum, about the topics you present, the experiences, the background to your self and many details of your life are stemming from fiction and make-belief. This has been from the start. And it's okay, it's the way you try to find a way to communicate, to belong somewhere intellectually and ultimately emotionally. There are a few times, years ago, at the forum where you've admitted quite plainly how and why you were making up things about your life in rather clear terms but you probably forgot you did. It's just amusing that you think you're so clever while people generally tolerate your inability to play a convincing role. Personally I find your characters often funny and charming. A spectacle! But as far as I know not many actually think you are representing a person with real concerns. You don't talk like that. You talk like fiction, like movie actors would if they would act in a movie about this forum. Or like someone who lives life through a diet of browsing books and movies.

Does this come as a surprise to you? I can wear many hats as well and freely communicate despite what I know to be true and despite what I suspect, simply because I do not care that much, as I have little requirements toward people and their particular versions of reality which they want to believe in. And yet I do not do any fiction or pretence here, unless leaving out certain minutes of life would be seen as pretentious. There's not much difference between made-up fiction or how people try to represent "real events" in their mind. There's a difference of course, but to me not relevant in how I accept the premise. I'm interested in whole other things inside a communication. I suppose it could be described somewhat as the amount of deep self-reflection present as I enjoy that particular sparkle. It's how it glisters, like a small, bright fire-cracker shot into the dark night.

This post won't make sense to everyone but it does answer your question above and beyond any possible requirement it might have.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Diebert, there is something really off in your present thrust. You have now backed away from one deceptive statement and are now making a different, but related, accusation, the purpose of which is only to discredit me publicly. This is not, as I hope you are aware, between you and me, but between you and your readers, you and the forum: people you wish to influence to your 'side' to all appearances.

This post of yours is pure deviousness. This is not how I desire to spend my time but I can't see a way around it. You have established an accusation - not a suggestion but an accusation - based on cobbling together elements from our communications. And with this you wish to communicate a very specific thing: unreliability, game-playing, insincerity, and lack of (proper) seriousness toward the greater questions which now are backgrounded now as this ridiculous charade is foregrounded.

You have established a devious, indeed a malicious lie - a series in fact - and it is a lie with a specific intent. Once a lie of this sort is tossed up it establishes itself and in this way lying is a pretty ugly undertaking. The denial then seems to give weight to the lie. It is an ugly business.

The rest of what you wrote is part of an elaborate rhetorical subterfuge through which you speak *tolerantly* and even *benevolently* to that which you have branded deviously. It is really pretty weird Diebert. 'Alex Jacob on the brain' but carried to a farther point. Where does it stop? I suggest that it won't ... that it can't.

Everything that I write here, and even when deliberately and openly I had the username The Talking Ass, is written from a sincere platform. All philosophical and spiritual ideas, and all snips out of readings, are part of a wide-ranging investigation of these matters. The ultimate quality of that investigation is, as with everyone, up for debate, but like you and anyone else the effort is made in good faith.

What is more interesting than your various fantasies about my life or my interests, my strengths or weaknesses, is the 'tone' and the 'stance' with which you set yourself up as the one deciding on these things. This is not a matter of an opinion on some philosophical point, it is attack which you aim at the very integrity of a person, the ground on which they stand. You can do this - and this was established by the forum early on as part of a modus operandi - and you do do this for murky reasons. It is a form of absolutism or totalising expressed through an audacious and I would say quite literally dysfunctional and dysfunctioning motive.

I have no idea to whom your post will or will not 'make sense' - it is an embarrassing display - but I give you no power to make pronouncements of this totalising sort. You always hold on to that right hubristically, and though I think you should give it up, I have no power to make that choice for you. You have lied and distorted and done it deliberately.

Notice how this (my writing and my presence here) has been made by you into something entirely personal?

I am not interested in this sort of exchange with you - at all - but I feel duty-bound to respond this far. But this is the last of it.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by jupiviv »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Jupi, 'enquiry' is an alternate spelling of 'inquiry'.
I see my usage of "sic" was incoherent. I meant that "enquiry" wasn't the right word to use because I got the sense from the tone of your response that you were defending a position from some kind of challenge or serious investigation. I honestly just wanted you to explain your terms, which you still haven't done. It's almost as if you're afraid that you won't be able to come up with a valid answer and, therefore, losing all pretence and openly bilking a perfectly friendly question.
But I did offer a response: essentially a group of questions about your own statements in respect to valuations..
It was quite clearly *not* a response. I really don't care one way or another, because even if you do have a response it isn't likely to be very illuminating.
Notice how this (my writing and my presence here) has been made by you into something entirely personal?
Pardon? Most of your output is speculation about the personal lives and details of others.

BTW, Diebert is waaaay too tolerant with you. If I'd been an admin (not that I want to be) you would've been ip-banned after the second or third reemergence.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Diebert, there is something really off in your present thrust. You have now backed away from one deceptive statement and are now making a different, but related, accusation, the purpose of which is only to discredit me publicly. This is not, as I hope you are aware, between you and me, but between you and your readers, you and the forum: people you wish to influence to your 'side' to all appearances.
It seems you're not really understanding what I was saying. It was not backing away, it was just saying that most of what you've offered, philosophically as well personally, are just simply "cobbled together elements", pure fictional accounts and an overdose of pretence. Possibly a weird mixture of actual events and your beloved "fiction" and "metaphors".

If I think someone is pretending to know something, to be someone, that's my opinion based on hard won experience in real life, dealing with actual people of all parts of society, okay? Not something to "prove" (although I could and it would not change anything) but I'm in the position to know enough. It's not a new insight but I "humoured" you in continuing the "project" for whatever internal reasons. It seemed like the only way you were able to address some of the deeper questions of life, so who am I to stop that?
And with this you wish to communicate a very specific thing: unreliability, game-playing, insincerity, and lack of (proper) seriousness toward the greater questions which now are backgrounded now as this ridiculous charade is foregrounded.
That's my view but it's not clear how conscious you are of it. Or at least it remains for ever ambiguous and you prefer it that way I suppose. So with my "charge" I force the duplicity to collapse on itself. Something you’ve always resisted by the way.
You have established a devious, indeed a malicious lie - a series in fact - and it is a lie with a specific intent. Once a lie of this sort is tossed up it establishes itself and in this way lying is a pretty ugly undertaking. The denial then seems to give weight to the lie. It is an ugly business.
Who cares in this case? You're using now four different accounts on this forum, with neither being your real name.

You should laugh it off if I'm just embarrassing myself. But you don't! You're behaving now all so hysterical and flustered. Not very believable again! Adults don't care about this shit, the crazier left-field it is, the harder they laugh. But not you!
Everything that I write here, and even when deliberately and openly I had the username The Talking Ass, is written from a sincere platform.
That's actually the biggest problem for you. You bring your precious, loving platforms to the one place it will for certain be ridiculed, attacked, sliced and diced. With close to zero chance on understanding any of it by anyone according to your own assessment of the state of mind, capacity and interest of your audience. So that's just another lie you tell your self and/or your audiences.
the 'tone' and the 'stance' with which you set yourself up as the one deciding on these things. This is not a matter of an opinion on some philosophical point, it is attack which you aim at the very integrity of a person, the ground on which they stand.
Thank you! That's called philosophy. Realizing how you are the "decider" (and how you are not) and that there's nothing "integer" about person-hood to begin with and the ground on "which they stand" is a violation of the way. Challenging "integrity" is just a start. You know the forum you're in so don't play "offended" now.
Notice how this (my writing and my presence here) has been made by you into something entirely personal?
Indeed, you're right. But the title of this thread is all about the personal although you picked it to include the broadest topic possible, for as long winding as possible. In the earlier closed thread, I specifically asked to focus a bit more and not have these wandering, undefined non-topical feasts any more. It seemed a reasonable request and I was not planning to micromanage it.
I am not interested in this sort of exchange with you - at all - but I feel duty-bound to respond this far. But this is the last of it.
The thread will be moved to the helpdesk based on my view that its only purpose appears to be to restate again that the forum's aim was just "front, deception, and in many ways a convoluted lie" as the opening text already quickly asserts. Which is fine for a new member to boldly proclaim but not someone who keeps on bringing that same hollow line for hundreds of posts over many years without being able to really substantiate it. In that case, we're dealing with a personal self-help journey of projection. Hence: helpdesk material!
jupiviv wrote:BTW, Diebert is waaaay too tolerant with you. If I'd been an admin (not that I want to be) you would've been ip-banned after the second or third reemergence.
Perhaps it's better someone else does moderation for a while. I'm always mindful of attachments. You or Russell, or both? Anyone with actual experience with living, working and living with messy human beings, please apply :-) Keep in mind I'm not currently actual admin pf the place so in the end I don't decide who can moderate or not.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Well, with this you win. When moderation becomes - as in this case - arbitrary and personal it is no longer an 'open forum', and thus not one that I will participate in.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:..., and thus not one that I will participate in.
So nothing really changed that way and probably never will...
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by jupiviv »

I can be an admin on the condition that I be responsible *only* for nuking any further reincarnations of Alex to oblivion. No warnings or responses etc.; unless he makes an actual point or argument according to my judgement, he's gone along with all of his posts. I am (willing to) become Death, destroyer of Alexes.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

This is important enough to warrant some energy.

What I see here is that you, Diebert, have converted your personal opinion and your personal animosity toward my person (the sort of person I am with the sort of intellectual interests and focus I have, as distinct from yours as type) into a personalised agenda. What you have done recently has been to overstep proper bounds by 1) shutting down a thread because you did not like the content of my posts in that thread, and 2) moved a thread that I begun to an area of the forum which functions as garbage-heap. (I remind you that you first created that thread by removing one of my last posts to the thread you locked and, on your own accord, starting another).

I do not recognise your authority here as moderator if it is conducted in a way that blatantly expresses your personal preferences and prejudice. You are turning the role of moderator into the role of a censor.
Jupi wrote:I can be an admin on the condition that I be responsible *only* for nuking any further reincarnations of Alex to oblivion. No warnings or responses etc.; unless he makes an actual point or argument according to my judgement, he's gone along with all of his posts. I am (willing to) become Death, destroyer of Alexes.
I am aware that some people here, and some of the remaining crew as it were (insofar as the number of participants here has been reduced to a handful), do not like my ideas or my approach. But I suggest that you, less obviously and not as thoroughly, but effectively, have taken on the role that Jupi gives voice to. Once such a policy is established on a forum like this, and once one member who has the role of moderator begins to act at the behest of one faction in a group, the open conversation and open communication of a forum such as this is destroyed.

I am aware that you understand that you have 'lessons' to teach me, and you seem to feel that your power-position as one who can delete or move posts, lock threads (when this had never occurred as I am aware in all the history of GF), or choose to eliminate an entire thread from the common area to your self-defined 'help' area (the area for people who in your view need 'help' is how you put it humorously), is an appropriate application of your teacher's position. I strenuously disagree. You do not have and your should not have, and you should not use, arbitrary moderator's power to eliminate a conversational stance or a philosophical position that you do not like.

Therefor, I ask the following: One that you relinquish the arbitrary expression of power by eliminating posts from threads by fiat. Or remove them out of their thread-context to a garbage heap you have established. And that you unlock the thread that you inappropriately locked and for 2 reasons:
  • One, the one who starts a thread is not and should not be considered the 'owner' of that thread. It does not stand to reason. Once a thread has been begun, and one any other (even one) has participated in it, it is no longer 'owned' by the initiator. The thread initiator, in my view and simply by a common sense argument, cannot petition to have it a) locked or b) destroyed. Because now it contains other people's contributions. If Jupi (or anyone) fears that ideas they do not like may contaminate the topic they have begun, they should not initiate topics. It is really as simple as that.

    Two, because you shut it down because (as I see it) you did not like the content of my ideas. You responded, it seems, to Jupi's request to lock it, but as we see above by his words he does not now and likely never will 'like' (nor understand) my approach or my ideas. It is quite easy to see that Jupi's attitude, if put into action in any context, and certainly on a forum as this, would destroy that forum.
And I ask that you restore the thread 'Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion' to its place in the main forum. To defend the thread - that is, the reasons why the thread has relevancy to the forum - would be an exercise in silliness. It would be impossible to argue that it does not. Yet to argue against the ideas expressed in that thread, therefor, is exactly what this forum is about. The idea behind the forum is to be willing to become vigorous in the defence of one's understanding and one's views. That has been called 'getting bloody'.

Finally, you seem to have largely reacted because I used strong language toward you. I told you to fuck off. And I used a particularly vulgar and very American phrasing: Go fuck your mother. Even this use of language, in my own view, is entirely consistent with language usages which had been used on this forum and sometimes still are. To have freedom in the use of one's terms, and to establish that the opposing party is responsible for their own reaction, is I think something understood here. Or should be. As I said to you in a PM: Take it like a man but don't get hung up on it. That is still my position.

Again: please refrain from censoring my posts (or anyone's posts) through arbitrary deletion. Please unlock the thread which you locked because you don't like my opinions. And please restore the thread I began to its position in the main forum.

I come and go here Diebert. This is something you cannot - and should not - control or monitor. And while I (or anyone else) is here it should not be you or anyone else that has decision-power, especially, as in my case, when my opinions and ideas are reasonably and extensively presented. You may not like my contributions and may have arguments against them. But you do not have any right at all to turn your personal animosities into moderation-decisions that delete those opinions.

I hope that the good sense in what I have written here will get through to you and I hope that you will respond to very reasonable requests. If this doesn't work I will make my case with the forum owner. You may think this is my 'ego' talking but it really isn't. Your decisions were inappropriate ones and they should be rectified.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:What you have done recently has been to overstep proper bounds by 1) shutting down a thread because you did not like the content of my posts in that thread
No I explained why the thread was locked and gave sufficient reasons which are way more believable and easier to verify than your assumption. Your posts were not the issue although they didn't possess any redeeming quality either. However, I do not moderate quality as such, just having a few minimal standards, which I lifted a few notches above earlier moderation at the forum.
, and 2) moved a thread that I begun to an area of the forum which functions as garbage-heap. (I remind you that you first created that thread by removing one of my last posts to the thread you locked and, on your own accord, starting another).
It's not a heap, it's the helpdesk forum, for technical issues or stuff which I wonder if it should really remain in the main forum where some level of focus could be beneficial. Admittedly that's a subjective view and I do apply my own wisdom and standards. And you can guess that they certainly won't be anything like your standards or prevent your sense of injustice.

There are in this case multiple reasons for the move but I was aware some firm boundaries were being introduced as well. The forum is not supposed to be a stage for never-ending personal exposition and free-range rambling, for an audience of what is it, three, four people, and yet laced with bitter criticism of the very platform it's using and the general philosophy being discussed. And that with the volume and duration it has -- that doesnt' make sense! Every thinking human being has better things to do then looking year after year for the same ugly dragon to bore with a theory on his woes. It's something I've requested before and I moved from asking to just perform the action.
I do not recognise your authority here as moderator if it is conducted in a way that blatantly expresses your personal preferences and prejudice. You are turning the role of moderator into the role of a censor.
You prefer a moderator conducting his work following some absolute standard, like the metric system? Or perhaps he needs to explain everything with reference to at least three books of some some notoriety, two YouTube video's and one well told childhood trauma?

Dear Gustav, you are, like so many visitors and former regulars here, facing strong issues stemming from your own remarkable personality with its various ordering and disordering. You do generate a lot of energy and words, wherever you visit, but you should wonder perhaps if that's a good thing or more like a warning sign. It's also an indication that perhaps your whole approach is wrong and relying on perceptions of people, of the world, which are still left largely unexamined. And because of that, they will keep surfacing (you conjure them effectively) until you recognize them for what they are. In the mean while, ironically, you suspect others are constantly ignoring their own splintering eyes and creating their own reflections. It's always easier to spot it elsewhere I suppose. And I can say such things with what's perhaps the deepest sense of irony and appreciation humanly possible. Self-knowledge is such a great thing!
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

In a PM Diebert wrote:A request like that needs some substantiation. Keep it impersonal if you like but that will be hard since you have personal reasons to continue posting on this forum with three or four active members left who are not in the same boat as you and never will be.
It is you who are having difficulty keeping this impersonal. You have made it nearly completely personal. I am resisting this over-personalisation and request that you de-personalise it by ceasing to lock threads, delete posts and relegate threads to a zone where they die and are intended to die. It doesn't really need 'further substantiation'. The request, and the reasoning underpinning it, stands on its own. It is completely reasonable.

Everyone, by definition, insofar as they are persons, has 'personal reasons' for writing on this forum or any forum. It is impossible to write without personality or from the perspective of a non-person. It is not your role, and should not be your role, to stand over my reasons, or my person. Additionally, though there are 4-5 active persons writing here, there are likely 10 and possibly more who read. I know of 3 persons who read but don't post.

To imply that to write here you have to 'be in the same boat', is nonsensical. The notion behind a forum, just as it is behind the concept of philosophy in an open society, is to be exposed to differing viewpoints, not to shut them out.
It's very hard for me to understand why you'd be concerned with it. Because I can hardly believe that I'm here myself still typing away. You have a family, a business, a beautiful country to live in, so many books and possibility for high level discussions. But you sit here at the drain stop trying to ... what?

From all the destructive trends in the worlds, you are "concerned" about mine. On the remains of a forum which I nurture until Kevin pulls the plug. Like a museum on extended lifetime through a kind subsidy.

So, you'll need to make me understand without repeating what you wrote before. Because that doesn't sound like a human being. On a personal note (skip if you don't like it) do you even realize how unreal you come across on the fora and why people react on you like you do? Not just because they disagree but because you sound like a dork. But I have not problem with it though.
None of this is at all relevant, or if it is relevant it is relevant to a personal conversation. Many things are 'hard for you to understand' but this has no bearing on the simple and direct request I am making.

What I am 'doing' is expressed, clearly and succinctly, in the posts themselves. I constantly explain and reexplain my purposes, more than anyone else I think. It requires no further elucidation.

Obviously, you personalise this when you refer to the forum as 'yours'. I think the only reason Kevin would pull the plug is that he doen't want to pay the fees. I have contributed hundreds of dollars so far and so, ipso facto, I am not one interested in seeing it go down the drain.

You want on the one hand a complete 'impersonalisation', and on the other a 'human being'. My communication, just above where I explain my view, is a reduced communication, reduced to obvious fact.

You do very much 'have problems' with what I write, how I 'sound' and to all appearances many different things.

Your personal assessment as to how my tone is received is also not relevant. For example, the 'tone' of posters like Leyla and Jupi is not much to my 'liking' except I cannot conceive of eliminating them.
The forum is not supposed to be a stage for never-ending personal exposition and free-range rambling, for an audience of what is it, three, four people, and yet laced with bitter criticism of the very platform it's using and the general philosophy being discussed.
I have said numerous times what aspect of the forum I admire, and the Founders of it. It is testament in a very real sense to the effect of their initiation of the forum that it calls forth, still, the response it does. My contributions are not destructive to the focus over-all if this is understood, and I explain myself at every juncture.

Your personal assessments ("Dear Gustav") is not of relevance in this context, nor to me. What impresses is that you think it should be and that, for you, it is. I ask that this stop.

The psychological analysis provokes only contemptuous dismissal. But this does not mean that I dismiss a psychological aspect to our (the forum's) argumentation.

Extending this psychological analysis (psuedo-analysis really) to larger and philosophical - or spiritual - questions and assuming that you moderate these, is exactly where your problem is found. Keep your problem: write about it, express it, discuss it. But don't allow your issue to cloud moderator's decisions.

Please: unlock the thread (locked threads are death in numerous ways to open communication. It 'chills' dramatically communication). Restore this thread to its proper place and stop intervening in it, and by your moderator's presence, chilling it. And refrain from deleting posts arbitrarily.

These are reasoned and reasonable requests.

Having a moderator is a good thing. Incorrect or over-the-bounds moderation is a very bad thing.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

I don't want private back-door communications with you, Diebert. Keep it on-forum.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

You just PM'ed me actually about this stuff, not the other way around. Are you losing your mind?

But you are abusing now the forum with some distorted view of your "rights" and trying to force your opinion on what is "reasonable".

It seems you desire really to be blocked, punished by your online family whose attention you keep craving? Or something. Please do not post anymore here about this. Accept my fair or unfair decisions or take a hike!
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Confronting Chaos, Surrender, Subversion

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

I PM'd you in your capacity os moderator, or one who has taken that role in any case, and I prefaced that PM thusly:

"I am starting with a very reasonable request to you, also stated on-forum, in the hope that you will see and understand the good sense of the observations.

I do not want any more personal communication with you, Diebert, not in PM or in email. But I emphatically am opposed to you shutting me down or shutting me out. I am not taking this tack entirely for personal reasons, though there is obviously a personal element. I see you beginning a destructive trend on the forum and I think you should see that it is such.

My note on-forum follows:"
_____________________

I thought it proper to copy you in PM. It is the correct way to do things.

When I say that I don't want private conversation with you, I mean that I want all discussion to take place on-forum, not through back-room negotiations. We have a long history of PMs and email communications, as you know.

I am not in any sense 'abusing the forum', and if I am speaking about 'rights' I am speaking about rights that all participants should have, including those I do not personally like. The way that you spin this, and insist on your spinning of it, indicates a problem that you have, not one I have. I am attempting to resolve that problem through clear use of language.

You cannot interpret a request not to be 'blocked' as a desire to be 'punished', and the insinuation that you suppose I do this to be included in a family, is evidence of the distorted processes by which you are making decisions.

I do not accept your decision, nor should anyone. Your decisions are bad decisions.
I talk, God speaks
Locked