| |
|
Without wishing to start any kind of confrontation (especially not with kickass Egyptian gods  ), I have to take issue with some of the points that Horus raises.
You could venture that the board might act as a place where you can experiment with your secret side, a place where you can tackle your demons head-on, presenting them for feedback from other normal or outrageous/'darkside' suits.
Well, yee-ee-es, sort of. The problem is that this approach presupposes that all the other people on the board have limitless reserves of energy and resource to deal with said demons. It assumes that their lives are fesivals of peace and acceptance, untrammelled by fear or pain, unafflicted by the predjudices of others; pages from a left-wing colour-supplement. Such is not the case. Whilst adopting a Devil's Advocate suit could be a valid way of opening up debate, it would have to be done with great care and skill- which isn't really what's being advocated here.
Not sure what's meant by "without needing to tackle the modus operandi of a real-life environment". Free from assumptions based on the physical self? Or just absolved of the need for basic courtesy and respect?
there's also the whole ego-armour angle to consider: Using the board to break down your own defences/character armour/ego/personality and then regroup your thoughts in building a new self-elaboration, continuing in this cycle and 'bettering' yourself all the while.
Yes, that's a very good point (and something I've been exploring myself) but I don't see how we're going to do that without good communication, and sometimes good communication means reading a post and going away to cogitate for a while so that you can better respond to the poster's ideas.
Evolution in practice, learning to deal with situations that you would rarely get involved with in real life, and seeing the world through new eyes.
What sort of situations? I'm curious; can you offer an example?
What about communication though? Is it self-defeating? Animals don't need it.
Wrong, as it goes. Animals have all manner of communications systems: mating rituals, pheremone trails, the bee's waggle-dance, the cephalopod's skin which shifs colour with its mood. Communication in humans is necessary for all manner of things, including the development of cognition.
Whilst it is important to avoid going over the same stale ideas time and again (hearing you loud and clear on that one!), I'm not sure your off-the-top-of-the-head approach is the best way to do this. If you don't examine the points that have been made, how can you avoid repetition?
I believe that we only work against ourselves when we enter into any argument/discussion; in so doing we will ultimately work against others that could be our allies, by creating boundaries, negotiations
This is only true if we regard all discussion as a war of words. When I enter into a discussion I'm often more interested in finding out why a person thinks the way they do than in automatically assuming that I'm right, they're wrong, and it's my job to put them straight. (I exclude from this the correction of factual errors. I'm perfectly happy for people to fill in the gaps in my knowledge and I think it's patronising not to do the same for others.)
To be truly free, we must communicate non-verbally... If we believe in the spiritual, then we must also believe that the spirit can create an effect on the universe by non-material means. And the most powerful of those come under the headings of Creation and Communication. Especially if combined.
Well, maybe, but... on a bullietin board? What should we do, post entirely in emoticons?
So, to recap: I think I understand where you're coming from with this, but I'm not sure you've thought your ideas through as regards exploring them here on the board. You're not advocating the abandonment of communication but a shift towards the non-verbal, maybe even the telepathic. All well and good, but not really practicable in a purely verbal medium such as this one.
(Oh, and BTW: Oi! My man Dane might not have been much of a talker, but he'd read Kropotkin. So much for "can't string three sentences together", eh? ) |
|
|
