Ges
-
Posts
221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ges
-
-
2 hours ago, DMT Elf said:
You picked up a reputation, bruh.
Hmmm, reputation. Doesn't sound like an enlightened concept 🤭
-
When I project, I get criticized. When I don't project, I also get criticized, but now also misunderstood. Then maybe I should start projecting again, at least criticism can be useful. But what to do with being misunderstood?
-
All of you guys seem to believe that I'm some sort of a "bad guy", maybe even "The bad guy", and so you assume the worst about me.
It's fine. I don't care. Carry on.
-
2 minutes ago, Faith said:
I also don't know what this means?🤷♀️
At first, I thought it was regarding Phil's comment about working with the public and you saying, "you havent seen anything yet" and this being "just an introduction" was because this forum is new,
That's it. The rest is overthinking it.
2 minutes ago, Faith said:but then that didn't makes sense because as you know Phil was on the other forum as a mod for many years. So. Why would this be much different.
I don't know why this would be much different. Maybe ask him.
-
8 minutes ago, WhiteOwl said:
I remember you ranting a lot of awful stuff about the people who left this site, on a thread on the other forum. Pretty sure that was you.
Excuse me?!I have no idea who left this site.
-
I probably should have used an emoji or something to make it sound a little bit lighter.
So here you go:
You haven't seen anything yet. It's just an introduction 😄
-
@Phil I have already explained myself here:
10 minutes ago, Ges said:Actually quite the opposite. I meant it in the most encouraging way possible.
Like, when a girl rejects a guy, you don't tell him to stop approaching, but to do the opposite. It's nothing, really.
Another way to say it is that shit happens. But I was being polite.
-
3 minutes ago, Ges said:
Actually quite the opposite. I meant it in the most encouraging way possible.
Like, when a girl rejects a guy, you don't tell him to stop approaching, but to do the opposite. It's nothing, really.
@Phil Masculine love, you might say.
-
56 minutes ago, Mandy said:
I realize that you probably just meant it in a more negative discouraging way, but still, why?
Actually quite the opposite. I meant it in the most encouraging way possible.
Like, when a girl rejects a guy, you don't tell him to stop approaching, but to do the opposite. It's nothing, really.
Or when you fail at an exam or don't get the job you want. Basically, it applies in any situation where things aren't all butterflies and roses. That's what reality is, so be prepared at least emotionally because life will always surprise you and give you tests and hard times.
-
39 minutes ago, Phil said:
In all fairness workin with the public is hard y’all.
8 minutes ago, Ges said:@Phil Don't overthink it.
-
@Phil Don't overthink it.
-
3 minutes ago, Phil said:
In all fairness workin with the public is hard y’all.
You haven't seen anything yet. It's just an introduction.
-
Either I'm crazy or there is some serious signaling going on. That's how gaslighting makes you feel. Whenever you feel that way, then you surely are being gaslit.
-
4 hours ago, BlendingInfinite said:
It may be that my way of expressing myself is a bit direct.
But I myself know how it is when people do not understand things and then make any accusations, instead of thinking beforehand.
To say whether you are stupid requires of course more observation, especially this is not about simple discussions. And even then it would only be a judgment, at the moment. Everything can always change.
Maybe. Whatever.
-
Spirituality is like music. There are different genres and instruments, different artists and songwriters. There's always development both in production and personal taste, as well as the collective taste. Listen to whatever resonates most with you. But at the end of the day, music is just what it is, carefully articulated sounds. No need to be dogmatic about one genre or to demonize genres that don't resonate much. Advaita is not my cup of tea, almost like classical music. Though, I can appreciate its beauty sometimes.
-
13 hours ago, Phil said:
No worries at all. No problem either! 🙂
More relatable than you might suspect. I was born into controlling a temper, in the environmental sense.
Much respect for that you are saying whatever you’re saying, to me. 🙏🏻
Ditto. And thanks.
13 hours ago, Faith said:@Ges Hope your electric issues are resolved now. That can be frustrating! 😖
I like the fact that you can self-reflect and then self-correct.
Resolved. Thanks.
10 hours ago, Unknown said:With all due love, just wanna say thank you for reminding me to log the fuck off of forums in general and stop wasting a sinful amount of time dicking around with pointless arguments with strangers and shit, LOL.
Nice, but no proof.
1 hour ago, BlendingInfinite said:Lol, sry I don't have anything from gaslighting you. This is an online community and I don't even know you.
Cool. Whatever.
-
1 hour ago, Indisguise said:
They're not though. They're conceptual, not actual.
"Higher" is a relational word of description, higher is only in relation to lower - which itself is only defined in terms of the "higher".
So what? There is utility beyond what's "actual". For example, it's a lot better to go to a doctor with high knowledge and skill instead of going blindly to some random doc, let alone not seeing any doctor at all.
-
Degrees and levels are real. It's a mistake to try to get rid of them. Spiritual bypassing, I believe it is called.
-
28 minutes ago, Faith said:
I'm just hoping it's not you, I would be pissed otherwise 😂
Actually, I have been dealing with an electrical problem for 2+ hours, but I don't think it's the main reason. I find that I tend to go overboard a lot when I'm arguing for some case. I like the roller-coaster.
But you're right, I should learn to control it a little bit.
@Phil Please disregard whatever useless things I said. Sometimes I have problems controlling my temper.
-
2 hours ago, Mandy said:
Of course we're not f***ing ahead! It's the end of being ahead or behind!
I'm not talking about egoic titles. You can be ahead without being egoic, and you can be behind while being egioc (unsurprisingly that makes a lot of sense). Egotism and advancement are not mutually exclusive. -
18 hours ago, Phil said:
I was demoted & asked to leave for commenting on a thread in which the op was asking if there was perhaps a flaw in Leo’s communication, specifically in regard to there being a you which is avoiding the truth. The member pointed out and or questioned if that is misleading, and sited me as offering a more straightforward clearer communication in this regard. I offered once again, there is only love, that love is infinite and unconditional, there are no separate selves, there is no you which avoids a or a the, truth. I also was very transparent with Leo, as seen by the private messages shared publicly, in the suggestions of putting his own alignment so to speak, his own health and well being, first.
I don't think you were transparent. He was talking about something related to your communication style and moderating the forum (strict business), and you were deflecting that with your suggestions on his personal choices and life. Not that I disagree with you on that, but that it was inappropriate and irrelevant to the conversation, imo. At least, that's what I remember from the screenshots.
18 hours ago, Phil said:Honestly, I often feel as if I’m the only voice of compassion for Leo. But this likely relates to being the only one who’s actually spent some time with him. (In person if you will, as compared to a camera). I (once again) implore anyone interested to do the same. I feel strongly that anyone who does, will see the communications, his videos, very very differently, and would also have much more compassion for him, and would also suggest that he prioritize his own health & well being. Also, I only mention this aspect as he mentioned this. He seemed like privacy is exceptionally important to him, and I respect privacy. I otherwise would not, and never did, share publicly that we hung out.
Maybe.
18 hours ago, Phil said:Getting back to your comment, there isn’t a problem. You’re saying there is a problem. Same thing Leo did. Miscommunications happen. So what. No self, no problem. Communication can always continue. No need to argue, nor accuse, belittle, re-contextual what was said, etc, etc.
Glad you said that.
18 hours ago, Phil said:I’m open to feedback. If I don’t understand what was said, such as here with @Joseph Maynor, I simply ask for clarification. I don’t say we have a problem and talk about him in a demeaning manor. That’s asinine imo. I don’t say they are being cryptic or vague years later, just because I don’t understand what they said. This is glaringly defensive posturing & disingenuous (imo).
I have seen at least 4 people complaining that they don't understand much of what you say. And I have pointed out to you exactly that a year or so ago. Maybe you remember maybe not, but I did tell you that it seems like you like to get up on your high horse and speak in crypto and it's a bit annoying. You doubled down and kept going in the same direction without addressing my point. You know that you speak in crypto, maybe on purpose maybe not, not really my business. But what I expect from you is clear communication and transparency. Not dancing around the point and distracting away from it like you've been doing up until now (at least here in this particular discussion).
18 hours ago, Phil said:It can not be my responsibility to clarify, when nothing is asked about what I said. When asked to, I am always happy to clarify. There’s never a problem, when there is no interest in being right, or defending stances of being right. Pain & suffering are more than amply self evident. These conversations are for the enjoyment of these conversations. It’s not personal, there’s no problem.
If you don't think it's your responsibility to clarify, then it is also not your right to ask me to re-read what you wrote. You can't have it both ways. There is a miscommunication, but you assume that the problem is on my part. You should examine that assumption and really drop it, because it's not only me who finds it hard to unpack your language. Notice that almost nobody else talks similarly. Everyone is down to earth with their use of language with other people. I take that as an indication of the desire to connect on the same level. As opposed to things with you where it seems like you're trying to communicate from above all the time (imo).
18 hours ago, Phil said:Only one of us is saying you’re stupid. I didn’t say anything about you in regard to not understanding what was said at all, I said you can refer to it and to what you said, to see the difference. To see how you changed the context. In your most recent reply above, you are again changing the context of what was said and making gross accusations. I didn’t say it was out of context, as if there were a ‘right context’ it should be in, I said you changed the context of what was said.
Don't try to gaslight me like that. Yes, I am accusing you of gaslighting. I replied to your question. The context you suggested was replied to. Then later, I changed the context, and that's fine. You don't get to control the narrative as you like. There is another person who is talking with you and they have the right to navigate the narrative with you without dismissing each other. There's not a problem with expanding on the current context. It's only a problem when the original context is ignored, like you are doing here. You're focusing on the little vocabulary "mistakes" and ignoring the fact that I actually did answer to your question very simply and directly without dancing around or distracting. What I say after that does not hurt the communication, because it's already included, not dismissed.
18 hours ago, Phil said:I also did not say that you are deliberately changing the context. I don’t think that at all. It is precisely because you are changing the context and not seeing that you are, as far as I can see, that I suggested comparing the two comments. That you might see that you are doing this.
You did not say much. All of your apparent passive-aggressiveness is a projection of mine that is happening in my head. Let's move on from this, okay?
-
13 hours ago, Phil said:
I was demoted & asked to leave for commenting on a thread in which the op was asking if there was perhaps a flaw in Leo’s communication, specifically in regard to there being a you which is avoiding the truth. The member pointed out and or questioned if that is misleading, and sited me as offering a more straightforward clearer communication in this regard. I offered once again, there is only love, that love is infinite and unconditional, there are no separate selves, there is no you which avoids a or a the, truth. I also was very transparent with Leo, as seen by the private messages shared publicly, in the suggestions of putting his own alignment so to speak, his own health and well being, first.
Honestly, I often feel as if I’m the only voice of compassion for Leo. But this likely relates to being the only one who’s actually spent some time with him. (In person if you will, as compared to a camera). I (once again) implore anyone interested to do the same. I feel strongly that anyone who does, will see the communications, his videos, very very differently, and would also have much more compassion for him, and would also suggest that he prioritize his own health & well being. Also, I only mention this aspect as he mentioned this. He seemed like privacy is exceptionally important to him, and I respect privacy. I otherwise would not, and never did, share publicly that we hung out.
Getting back to your comment, there isn’t a problem. You’re saying there is a problem. Same thing Leo did. Miscommunications happen. So what. No self, no problem. Communication can always continue. No need to argue, nor accuse, belittle, re-contextual what was said, etc, etc.
I’m open to feedback. If I don’t understand what was said, such as here with @Joseph Maynor, I simply ask for clarification. I don’t say we have a problem and talk about him in a demeaning manor. That’s asinine imo. I don’t say they are being cryptic or vague years later, just because I don’t understand what they said. This is glaringly defensive posturing & disingenuous (imo).
It can not be my responsibility to clarify, when nothing is asked about what I said. When asked to, I am always happy to clarify. There’s never a problem, when there is no interest in being right, or defending stances of being right. Pain & suffering are more than amply self evident. These conversations are for the enjoyment of these conversations. It’s not personal, there’s no problem.
Only one of us is saying you’re stupid. I didn’t say anything about you in regard to not understanding what was said at all, I said you can refer to it and to what you said, to see the difference. To see how you changed the context. In your most recent reply above, you are again changing the context of what was said and making gross accusations. I didn’t say it was out of context, as if there were a ‘right context’ it should be in, I said you changed the context of what was said.
I also did not say that you are deliberately changing the context. I don’t think that at all. It is precisely because you are changing the context and not seeing that you are, as far as I can see, that I suggested comparing the two comments. That you might see that you are doing this.
My time's over for now. I may or may not get back to this later.
-
@Robed Mystic Just to be clear, I still think you and Leo are deluded. You more so than him. I am not defending you or Leo here. Just freely sharing my thoughts where you guys don't have the power to silence me.
-
15 hours ago, Mandy said:
I did. He pointed out examining judgement itself, you replied with really nothing but classic old thought out judgement, then when he replied that you recontextualized you responded to judge him personally AGAIN.
Oh, Mandy! Oh, Mandy Mandy Mandy! I so wanna pinch your cheeks right now.
What is this about? Are you not reading what I'm writing? I did examine the judgement and said that it is possible that I am wrong, crazy, deluded, etc. What else do you want me to do? Nod along in silence? Become a doormat for Phil's perspective and everything you guys say? What possible outcome that might satisfy your expectations?
It is obvious that I did no re-contextualization of anything. Phil asked a question, and I answered it directly.
Is it possible that X might be true? Yes it is possible. No questions or doubts. See, very simple and direct.
Now, where does that leave us? Well, either we accept X as true, or deny it as false, or remain neutral about it. I guess there aren't that many choices after all.
Now, should I just take X for granted as true like Phil and you are suggesting? Or should I deny X entirely? Or should I remain (or at least try to) neutral about it? I chose the latter, then was accused of changing the context, when all I did was "going meta" like you guys like to call it.
You see, for you to suggest to me to examine judgement, there is the assumption that you somehow hold a more expanded perspective on the matter. But is this true? That's what I examined and found not to be the case. And it's the most neutral thing to do/say from my pov. You can disagree with me, you're free. I didn't offer much of an explanation, so that would be understandable. But to keep suggesting that I'm not looking is just disrespectful, and really one more indicator that supports my conclusions that you guys aren't ahead. It seems to me, at least.
All I did in my response was that I said: I acknowledge that I might be having wrong judgement as you suggested. But after examining my judgements, I don't think I do, and here are my thoughts. If you have a problem with them, feel free to disagree. I hold no expectations from you regarding my thoughts. And I have no attachment to them either. I am happy to change my thoughts whenever I'm convinced they're false. Simple, is it not?
I want to add that you guys seem stuck with this whole "no judgement is true/allowed" narrative, which is nothing but a judgement judging other judgements if that makes sense. So I don't see why this one particular judgement should weigh more than any other judgement. If you can convince me why, then please go ahead. I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'll be sorry to inform you that you might be holding a dogma and failing to see it. You're a beautiful woman, Mandy. Maybe should look in the mirror more often.
15 hours ago, Mandy said:If there weren't separate selves with reputations to be upheld and puffed up or shat upon, this whole thing would be hysterical.
Where is this coming from? Who are you talking about? Surely, I'm not involved.
I have no reputation to uphold, nor anything of the sorts. I am not an enlightenment teacher or anything. I don't even talk about spirituality that much anymore. And I said explicitly that my thoughts are useless and shall be dismissed asap if you don't like them or find them offensive in any way.
My thoughts of Leo and actualize.org. What do you think?
in The Path
Posted
Only problem is that I'm probably ranked very highly even on the dark side 😅