Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds

[Aaron]

At the risk of farther derailing the thread...

in the thread that gaming was discussed, one of them, 3dmonkey, mistook me as one of the people saying 'games are evil', despite there was nothing related in any of my posts, and got aggravated by himself. not too surprising, since there were around 3-4 people implying such arguments to that end, and he was discussing with them. i had had made a remark about how gaming had become industrialized and the 'artful' games of the kind blatzaddict has spoken about were not being made by big corporations who sell big volumes anymore, and this side discussion got lumped in the same discussion 3dmonkey himself was having with a number of other members. he even carried his point, on this totally irrelevant confrontation he brought, to the point of calling me sts, and my acts (which act, i wonder) not being from a place of loving. so basically, he was saying that saying that state of gaming industry in regard to blockbuster sales being rehash of early games, is something sts, and 'not out of a place of love'.

afterwards, blatzaddict, with whom i was having the side discussion of 'blockbuster game sales versus artful indie games', had also jumped on the train, to call me 'your actions are sts'. i very much doubt that he even understood what was going on at that point.

upon querying what was sts, i had faced a deteriorating response sequence that ended up 'mama needing hugs' and some image of some 'forum troll' humor.

i bowed out of that discussion.

I actually am wondering where this whole "Video games are evil." sentiment came from! I went back and searched every page of the "slackers" thread for instances of the word "evil" to find that phrase. And the only time any mention was made directly of video games being evil was a non-serious comment by BlatzAdict: "actually 3DMonkey.. Super Mario Bros. 3 IS evil... lololol" (provided with link to funny video)

Nobody ever said video games were evil in that thread. (or even implied it as far as I know! I read the whole thing...) But a whole lot of posts were accusing others of coming from that stance.

It's never appropriate for anyone to judge where another person is on their spiritual path. And it becomes especially nasty when it's used to drive home a point or shut the other person out. In our miniature Ra world here with our lingo, calling someone STS is like calling them a witch in Salem in the... erm... was it 1800s? history has never been a strong point of mine...

Anyhow, it's hurtful and only serves to promote separation. So, is there still an open wound from your being accused of "STS actions" or the like? I know that if I were accused of bring STS, it would hurt my feelings!

then, i open this thread, a totally irrelevant discussion, and 3dmonkey comes in here, apparently still continuing the 'something is evil should we ban it' discussion that has been leftover in the discussion of gaming he did with other people - STILL projecting the same argument to me, despite i had openly stated that i had no relevance with what he was perceiving me - ie 'games are evil we should ban them'. if you go back to that thread, you will still see the precursor of his arguments in this thread remaining in that thread, in the form of his replying 'ok you know now it is evil, and now, what are you going to do about it', to someone else than me, one of those he was having the games are evil discussion with.

as you can see, this entire situation is tied to his strong feelings on gaming, and the social question of whether games should be banned or not, and its just spilling over to this thread and being projected to me.

i still have no relevance to that discussion, of whether 'games/something is evil, should we ban them', however, yet he STILL discusses with me as if i had had made ANY such argument in these two threads, going to the extent of making accusations of 'not coming from a place of love', 'sts', 'not being at peace', this that.

The first post 3DMonkey made in this thread was focused on your viewpoint, rather than the topic you wanted to discuss. While it's true that what prompted that could have been your exchanges in the other thread, I don't think we can say for sure that he's carrying over the exact same argument. We don't know whether or not he made the assumption that you thought all higher technologies are evil and should be banned.

noone has the obligation to try to make such dysfunctional discussions work. when someone you are NOT even discussing, mistakes you saying something that you have not said, keeps that perception on his/her mind despite you have EXPLICITLY said that you had no relevance to it, and carries over that perception to OTHER topics, and going to the extents of accusing you of various evilry or this or that, you just do NOT discuss with that person. that's not something that can be worked through discussion. im not even going to comment on the low age average, derogatory language that the 'discussion' deteriorated into in that other thread. its ridiculous when someone accusing others of supposedly 'not coming from a place of love' and 'wanting to have someone else to have peace', wanders of to uttering sentences lie 'mama needs a hug'.

I agree with you that no-one is obligated to make a dysfunctional discussion work, and that communication totally broke down in the other thread.

Do you mean with these statements that you feel sort of "hounded" by 3DMonkey or others?

You say "It's something that cannot be worked through with discussion." Well, that's true that as long as perceptions of the other self are skewed, discussion will always devolve down to the catalyst that needs to be processed before the selves can open to eachother in acceptance and hace a mutually understanding conversation. So, in that sense, no, it cannot be solved by farther discussion. Instead, I offer that the communication should be focused on misperceptions of the other self.

P.S. All, I'm going to discuss with Monica the possibility of moving all forum relationship posts in this thread (including mine ) to the forum relations thread.

when i saw that, i thanked out of the discussion, but it was, SOMEHOW, perceived as 'sarcastic'.

excuse me, but i cant help that. noone can help anyone with that. if 'thank you' had become something that is unusable because it is used in sarcastic phrases, noone can do anything about that, and its not my or anyone else's responsibility.

You're right that you can't control what others think of you. Their thoughts are their choice. You can only control how you react to them.

this situation has occurred before. however this time, im not willing to allow projection of various archetypes onto me, and participate in the unfolding of such discussions that some people feel so strongly on, and i have no interest in. at least, not in a manner like this.

am i looking down on these people ? of course not. being young is not a crime. all of us have used speech like 'mama needs a hug' while we were younger - either in age or in mind. i myself have participated in a lot of forums with low age averages and have talked even stronger than that in my time.

however, im not interested in doing advanced spiritual discussions, in such formats, language or behavior set.

What archetypes do you feel are being projected onto you? I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.

There's nothing wrong with making the observation that people are young. (although there's no age listed on anyone's profile here) And I can understand why you wouldn't want to participate in discussions with those people who are not seen by you to be those who yield fruitful discussions. But I can personally attest that just because someone's young, or even unawakened, doesn't mean they don't have something of the utmost value to share with you, if the catalyst is understood for its personal nature, and taken to the self for development.

However, I think to start saying that some people are young, and to imply that this discredits them in any way, is not seeing the entire picture. One doesn't have to be young in order to not be focused on the impersonal discussion of spiritual principles.

as for whether i am coming from a place of love, no, i am not. i am coming from a place of balance. that is probably why i am here, in a forum related to Ra material in the first place.

This shows that you have a different idea of what bring4th should provide as a forum than other people, who are coming from different places, do. I think this might be a fruitful topic for a new thread...

as for whether i am coming from a place of love, no, i am not.

Nice to hear you say that. Now I know I'm not crazy. I read you right, from the beginning.

I'm honest when I say I love you unity100. In that love, I ask that you respect me as equal. You don't have to come from a place of love, and if not, I don't expect to be accepted by you.

I'm thankful for the opportunity to express myself. No hostility everyone. Genuine expression. That is all.

You've left out part of what he said.

as for whether i am coming from a place of love, no, i am not. i am coming from a place of balance. that is probably why i am here, in a forum related to Ra material in the first place.

Balance = love + wisdom. That means, unity100 self perceives that he comes from a place of love AND wisdom. This may highlight how valuable others' reflections of ourselves are. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty terrible at self perceiving whether or not my heart chakra is open, whether or not I'm speaking from a balanced place, whether or not I've fully integrated this or that particular catalyst... So, when others offer their perceptions of me, they offer me a view of myself that I couldn't see before. When people like 3DMonkey or BlatzAdict tell unity100 that he lacks love, they're reflecting an image of himself back to him. I don't think any image is accurate... They're all distortions because really, 3DMonkey, BlatzAdict, unity100, and everyone else is the one Infinite Creator. But that's how these perceptions of eachother can be utilized for a greater balance.