Never be afraid to ask for help

[manniz]

So what is to be done; what can be done; what do I want to be done? Nothing, other than imploring the readers of highly critical (often well written) posts to consider if what is being said is truly helpful to the person being given 'advice', or if someone is merely imposing their 'superior' viewpoint on another?

Brother, I do not think much needs to be done, other then valuing others' freedom of expression. The few posters that others believe use sarcasm, or do not present the highest vibrations are far more polite and understanding than the average world. Maybe, they present their viewpoints in the way they do, to add to the discussion in what they think is the best way. Who are you to judge if the advice they are giving is proper or not? What if the advice was not directed at the original poster, but for others, who may be reading it? For those, who are new to the spiritual material. To just give them a heads up through sarcasm, criticism, humor whatever, to consider alternative viewpoints from those being presented.

For ex. there is another thread going on about possessions, changelings etc. and that is a topic, where you absolutely need criticism, alternative viewpoints, because a new seeker can totally be swayed by amateur declarations on these important topics.

In this thread alone, what I posted was not related to the original poster at all, because I personally believe that his path is his alone, and the way I personally perceive his personality and seeking, he is not really going to pay attention to contrary advice anyways. Many such posts here are not looking for spiritual advice, but simply subtle validation, which other so called positive posts provide in ample amount.

So, how can you judge if the advice given was proper? And then, what if the advice is meant for other readers? And, what if it is not advice, but simply someone's observations, their expression?

Best approach would be to allow freedom of expression, and see if you can learn something from it. If you cannot, present your side or ignore it. Some may think that it is fine to respond to amateur declarative statements with love filled validation and co-operation. Others may wanna challenge these statements, and the mindset behind those statements. Some may see a delicate flower in some poster, who needs to be protected and loved. Others may see a soul making statements, which subtly indicate (maybe quite obviously) substantial distortion towards special-hood, spiritual-super-hero etc.

David Wilcox is a pretty good example. You cannot just expect others not to criticize or simply comment upon such examples. That will be a serious breach of other-selves' right to observation and expression. I am not suggesting that you specifically are, but many light filled posters here suggest the exact same that they'd rather not see critical posts.

I am gonna mention this example for the 1 millionth time, but when I read Unity100's posts from 2-3 years ago, what I noticed was that even though he had a blunt form of expression, and maybe a bit of angst, he provided very unique insight to ideas related to Ra material, and many positive, light filled seekers were not really happy with his tone, his desire to challenge/question higher densities etc. and basically criticized him so many times in their passive-aggressive ways that he left. His input would have been invaluable in the current post-2012 scenario.

Personally, I can deal with STS challenges in my extremely limited manner, because I know the essence of life, the philosophy of infinite creator gives me my basic right of expression, and the right to find my own way in existence. What is hard to challenge both in spiritual circles and regular Earth life, is the desire of love filled, positive mindsets to dictate their style of love, their style of political correctness. Oh well.

---

I feel like I'm treated with respect here for the most part.

Gemini is a good alternative example. Lots of his posts are in random threads, but I see a loving person behind those posts. And, he almost never makes declarative statements, or his seeking validation for his ego. If anything, he seeks comfort for insecurities here and there, which we all do. However, if Gemini started relaying breaking updates form his talks with higher self/other-entities as spiritual principles, you bet many posters are going to want to use criticism, snark, whatever they deem best to counter those ideas. And, in that case no matter how loving Gemini be, the criticism of ideas, or well meaning snarky remarks would a fair form of expression.

For now, I see Gemini as very curious and loving, (and kinda too eager for higher densities), so I like the child like randomness of some of his posts.

[Unbound]

"Best approach would be to allow freedom of expression, and see if you can learn something from it. If you cannot, present your side or ignore it."

It appears to me that this is the actual case. Individuals here are presenting their sides and sometimes that include a lack of understanding of the opposite side.

---

(Myself included as an individual, of course.)

[manniz]

"Best approach would be to allow freedom of expression, and see if you can learn something from it. If you cannot, present your side or ignore it."

It appears to me that this is the actual case. Individuals here are presenting their sides and sometimes that include a lack of understanding of the opposite side.

---

(Myself included as an individual, of course.)

I agree. I cannot even imagine what love/wisdom filled entity would actually not allow or delete the opinions expressed on this thread so far. This is very mild stuff, based on your average human discussion.

I am referring more to the mental perceptions of some, who seem uncomfortable with others' using sarcasm, or being critical of certain posters. Which is totally fine, and it is their right to feel uncomfortable, as is the right of the critics to present their opinion.

I must add that I do understand the point of those, who are recommending more love and acceptance than criticism. I value compassionate and sincere people a lot. Personally, I see the importance of a bit of cynicism, criticism etc. too. Especially on ideas that seem to have a bit of airheaded-ness, spiritual super-stardom behind them.

[xise]

"Best approach would be to allow freedom of expression, and see if you can learn something from it. If you cannot, present your side or ignore it."

It appears to me that this is the actual case. Individuals here are presenting their sides and sometimes that include a lack of understanding of the opposite side.

---

(Myself included as an individual, of course.)

I agree. I cannot even imagine what love/wisdom filled entity would actually not allow or delete the opinions expressed on this thread so far. This is very mild stuff, based on your average human discussion.

I am referring more to the mental perceptions of some, who seem uncomfortable with others' using sarcasm, or being critical of certain posters. Which is totally fine, and it is their right to feel uncomfortable, as is the right of the critics to present their opinion.

With respect to people being uncomfortable about communication, arguably there's a point when saying something in a way that is known to upset people when there are multiple ways to say the same thing could be related to a distortion or imbalance in the speaker as well as the listener.

Basically, both the person who feels they are at the brunt end of sarcasm and the person who gets multiple comments about an seemingly abrasive communication style both have their own catalyst. The former probably at least some orange catalyst (accepting oneself despite perceived sarcasm) and the latter some green (understanding why other selves feel hurt and pondering whether there was another way to communicate the same message).

There's truth/blue with both sides. The one at the receiving end will say or feel that same thought could have been communicated without such an abrasive edge and fails to go deeper as to why they feel the edge so sharply. The one making the statement often feels because they are speaking the truth, any offense taking to the statement comes from the other's catalyst and fails to go deeper in understanding what role their choice of words played in making others unnecessarily feel hurt.

Green and blue are hard to balance. Even Ra says that in 6th a lot of entities are balancing these two concepts. It's no surprise that this plays out in the forums as well.

[AnthroHeart]

I've never really gotten the hand of sarcasm or snarky remarks.

[manniz]

"Best approach would be to allow freedom of expression, and see if you can learn something from it. If you cannot, present your side or ignore it."

It appears to me that this is the actual case. Individuals here are presenting their sides and sometimes that include a lack of understanding of the opposite side.

---

(Myself included as an individual, of course.)

I agree. I cannot even imagine what love/wisdom filled entity would actually not allow or delete the opinions expressed on this thread so far. This is very mild stuff, based on your average human discussion.

I am referring more to the mental perceptions of some, who seem uncomfortable with others' using sarcasm, or being critical of certain posters. Which is totally fine, and it is their right to feel uncomfortable, as is the right of the critics to present their opinion.

With respect to people being uncomfortable about communication, arguably there's a point when saying something in a way that is known to upset people when there are multiple ways to say the same thing could be related to a distortion or imbalance in the speaker as well as the listener.

Basically, both the person who feels they are at the brunt end of sarcasm and the person who gets multiple comments about an seemingly abrasive communication style both have their own catalyst. The former probably at least some orange catalyst (accepting oneself despite perceived sarcasm) and the latter some green (understanding why other selves feel hurt and pondering whether there was another way to communicate the same message).

There's truth/blue with both sides. The one at the receiving end will say or feel that same thought could have been communicated without such an abrasive edge and fails to go deeper as to why they feel the edge so sharply. The one making the statement often feels because they are speaking the truth, any offense taking to the statement comes from the other's catalyst and fails to go deeper in understanding what role their choice of words played in making others unnecessarily feel hurt.

Green and blue are hard to balance. Even Ra says that in 6th a lot of entities are balancing these two concepts. It's no surprise that this plays out in the forums as well.

Fair enough. Also, the fact that we are on a web forum. In face to face interaction, it is easy to cut down on sarcasm etc. and accept criticism from a soul that you respect.

Though, when it comes to ideas, if someone presents them, they should have a certain mental discipline to accept criticism. The world of people, and the world of ideas do operate slightly differently, when it comes to criticism and analysis. Age becomes a factor too here. It is certainly harder to accept criticism, when younger, but as life beats you down, it becomes easier.

The way I see it, inspite of objections, projections, distortions, this thread still had fun moments. Especially after the criticism twist. Otherwise, it would have been a dull one, with someone's declarative, though kinda amusing statements, followed by others' non-critical validation, which would have led to making of more threads about breaking spiritual news and so on. Everyone got some catalyst out of this, which led to more catalyst on the Tao thread, and the forum became lively again.

---

I've never really gotten the hand of sarcasm or snarky remarks.

There is mean snarky and then there is pleasant snarky. Many hipster types overdo the mean kind on social media, but pleasant kind can be fun. I personally think, most of the snarky responses here are on the pleasant side. Others may disagree though.

[Steppingfeet]

...if you speak up and ask something be done about it, isn't that committing the same act of control?

That paradox is what has kept me (mostly) silent about the topic for years. I have also noticed it has kept me from speaking my mind in general as much as I'd like to for fear of overly critical words.

I understand and 100% support being a mirror to those who need it. But I think what I am talking about goes well beyond being a mirror and strays into criticism with the goal of control, whether conscious or subconscious.

This has been a conundrum at different points in my own life as well. Is expressing a viewpoint at odds with the other person's, especially if you don't approve of or agree with that persona's thought-action-expression, a form of control? Are you attempting, through your own expression, to "correct" their thinking or behavior so that it more closely conforms with your own?

I think that such a motivation (to correct, control, or overly influence) could (and probably frequently is) present, but I think that one can still offer a reflection that is scrubbed of those motivations. In this particular case, people can offer (and have offered) a viewpoint that is challenging to the viewpoint that A1 formulated, but isn't offered with a need or desire to control A1.

It can be a delicate situation though. I think that one of the safest, cleanest ways to express a reaction is to talk about how you feel in response to the other's actions. (Close to Tanner's reply.) Namely, the whole "I/you" language thing. Express your own difficulty, your own process, your own confusion, your own different viewpoint as it applies to yourself. You (the "I") then become the primary focus of the expression.

It's not always easy to speak to every situation in that mode, though. I agree with Manniz and Horuseus that love balanced with wisdom won't always yield a nod of approval and a total confirmation of the other's point of view. You may have information or a perspective that could be quite beneficial to the other self (per their own interests/desires), and needs to be expressed. Like Horuseus said, break the door down and tell your self-starved friend that there are, in actuality, like three leftover burritos in the fridge.

I think that one can simultaneously a) recognize the sacred right of the other self to form their own perception regardless of how delusional* it may be, while b) seeking to honor and protect the other's free will, while c) offering critical analysis and expressing disagreement with the content of the point of view.

Peas and love, GLB

*Though reality is ever the subjective thing, I think that some viewpoints can deviate or regress so wildly from the objective space between us, and in such an unhealthy or pathological way, that the viewpoint may rightly labeled "delusion". Though the same label can unfairly be used in emotional terms to strongly condemn or reject a viewpoint that is not actual delusion but is just significantly different from your own, or different from the collective's. The concepts presented in the Law of One potential candidates for that latter category.