Vulnerability

[Ed]

asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ryMdV6QIKU4yVzpXeisoAlvmQxVbdIQpk9s1x8 mx1b3nzRS0E0k730xBg-Cwo8qOz1KXebG1kj2NWkNK) wrote:
>

> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:27:51 -0800 (PST)
> From: "E. Drake"

[snip to:]

I have made by best and most noble attempt here. Will it be accepted
or are too many invested
in continuing?

Faithfully with L/L

Drake

I would like to offer you a suggestion which I haven't seen
anyone bring up previously here.

A major difference between you and David is that he is willing to be
completely open and vulnerable in sharing his personal experiences
with this list. You are an unknown scholar in an ivory tower. The LoO
teachings are more than just words to be endlessly studied; they're
for use. No matter to what degree your education and culture and
upbringing lead you to use the careful and reserved persona you have
adopted, you need to bridge the gap with David. Open up, be unafraid,
and reveal yourself, so you can be embraced and loved by the
community.

All the best, Ed

[Monica Leal]

I think this is a very astute observation, Ed. It is probably true
that the members here at asc2k feel more endeared to David and less
so to Drake, partially due to the fact that David has exposed more
of his weaknesses. But even if David had not bared his soul, people
would still feel more endeared to him, simply because it's his
forum! There is a loyalty to David, whereas Drake is just `another
member' so there was certainly an element of bias affecting people's
perception of what just transpired.

Drake has opened up a bit to me privately, so obviously I feel that
I know him better than most of the people in this group. I agree
that the idea of opening up more is certainly something that Drake
may wish to consider, especially since many people do not share his
interest in intellectual discussion.

Nevertheless, I would not be so quick as to attribute sinister
motives to Drake's preference for anonymity. Not everyone likes to
share their personal lives with people they've met only on the
internet, and this should not make them susceptible to ostracism or
prejudice!

For example, my husband is a very private person. There is NO WAY he
would EVER speak of his personal conflicts and challenges with even
casual friends, much less 800+ people on an internet discussion
forum! I admire David's openness, but not everyone is like that.
Should this preference for privacy be cause for being penalized if
someone chooses to participate in strictly intellectual discussion?

Likewise, although it has been mentioned that there are more than
800 members on this forum, how many of them regularly participate?
From my observation, it appears to be about 20. The rest mostly
lurk. Why are they so silent? Are they hesitant to engage in
intellectual discussion just because they do not feel comfortable
baring their souls to the rest of us?

I think expecting Drake to open up more is unfair. It's fine to
suggest it, of course, and it's up to Drake as to whether he wants
to do that. Quite frankly, if I were Drake, I probably would have
left the group by now. (I'm not even Drake and I almost left it.) So
it is to his credit that he is even continuing to participate at
all. Expecting him to bare his soul after being put on the chopping
block is, well, rather insensitive. How many of you would feel
comfortable doing that?

Oddly enough, there have been times when members were told to take
their discussions offlist because they were too transient.
Personally, I would like to see more discussion of personal
challenges in applying LoO principles: LoO applications to daily
life. But whenever I've suggested it, it was made clear that David
can share his transient daily experiences with us, because people
are interested in HIS transient daily experiences, but NOT in
everyone ELSE's transient daily experiences.

If anything, Drake has been strict about keeping away from transient
discussion, and staying on-topic. The LoO topic, that is. Now it's
being suggested that he get more transient in order to be better
accepted. ??? I'm confused.



--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=3Pcq89nbi-c1fMepR7Ovnq1fGtAUOcyV0AaH1SCg90YkasHEkTbrZHezp-vqSSvLCiqApAAuwH13PdY), Ed <metasyn@p...> wrote:
> I would like to offer you a suggestion which I haven't
seen
> anyone bring up previously here.
>
> A major difference between you and David is that he is willing to
be
> completely open and vulnerable in sharing his personal experiences
> with this list. You are an unknown scholar in an ivory tower. The
LoO
> teachings are more than just words to be endlessly studied; they're
> for use. No matter to what degree your education and culture and
> upbringing lead you to use the careful and reserved persona you
have
> adopted, you need to bridge the gap with David. Open up, be
unafraid,
> and reveal yourself, so you can be embraced and loved by the
> community.
>
> All the best, Ed
>

[* Zia]

I think this is a very astute observation, Ed. It is probably true
that the members here at asc2k feel more endeared to David and less
so to Drake, partially due to the fact that David has exposed more
of his weaknesses. But even if David had not bared his soul, people
would still feel more endeared to him, simply because it's his
forum! There is a loyalty to David, whereas Drake is just `another
member' so there was certainly an element of bias affecting people's
perception of what just transpired.

HI Monica :) I would certainly agree with your perspective here. Yet the
value of the forum is ALSO the people on the forum, equally, otherwise there
would not be a forum :) In God's eyes we are ALL EQUAL :)


For example, my husband is a very private person. There is NO WAY he
would EVER speak of his personal conflicts and challenges with even
casual friends, much less 800+ people on an internet discussion
forum! I admire David's openness, but not everyone is like that.
Should this preference for privacy be cause for being penalized if
someone chooses to participate in strictly intellectual discussion?

*Yes my husband is the same. Very much into the spiritual practices and
growth, and wonders WHY I would even be sharing on a forum! I personally
salute every man that chooses to share, because sharing was what women
seemed to do well together and for sooo long men felt very uncomfortable in
doing, even amongst only men! This is the real value of relationship for so
many, giving the man an opportunity to share and feel safe in doing so with
a woman, and vice versa :) And as found on this forum, we discover we are
really NOT THAT DIFFERENT in terms of feelings, experiences, hopes and
dreams :)


Likewise, although it has been mentioned that there are more than
800 members on this forum, how many of them regularly participate?
From my observation, it appears to be about 20. The rest mostly
lurk. Why are they so silent? Are they hesitant to engage in
intellectual discussion just because they do not feel comfortable
baring their souls to the rest of us?

*In observing from another forum some time ago with a similar number of
'active participants being number of email addresses etc', it would seem
that many log in, and may move on, yet leave their email address and ability
to look in from time to time on the forum. A personal friend of mine in
Australia told me he was already on THIS forum when I mentioned I had
joined, and in looking him up he joined in May 11, 2001 and hasn't been on
the site/forum for years!!!!!


Oddly enough, there have been times when members were told to take
their discussions offlist because they were too transient.
Personally, I would like to see more discussion of personal
challenges in applying LoO principles: LoO applications to daily
life. But whenever I've suggested it, it was made clear that David
can share his transient daily experiences with us, because people
are interested in HIS transient daily experiences, but NOT in
everyone ELSE's transient daily experiences.

*Hmm I wonder if this is still true, for there has been much benefit in
others sharing. I would agree that 'each' sharing has value to the whole.
It is also very tough to apply Lo0 if the foundation of the relationship is
not based on this. In creating the foundation to our union: we chose to
learn to love; unite as ONE, and UNITE in GOD/CREATOR/SOURCE
whateveryoucallit! That foundation then holds us profoundly on course, and
we both saw that we would 'work in the world' together, as a team :)


If anything, Drake has been strict about keeping away from transient
discussion, and staying on-topic. The LoO topic, that is. Now it's
being suggested that he get more transient in order to be better
accepted. ??? I'm confused.

*Me too :) Thank you for your reality check :) Z

[Yamku]

> Likewise, although it has been mentioned that there are more than
> 800 members on this forum, how many of them regularly participate?
> From my observation, it appears to be about 20. The rest mostly
> lurk. Why are they so silent? Are they hesitant to engage in
> intellectual discussion just because they do not feel comfortable
> baring their souls to the rest of us?
>
>

On behalf of some of the "lurkers," I'd like this concept understood more
fully as "observers" who are studying the material and are not ready to be
teachers of it. Also, I/we believe that questioning for questioning's sake, as
an
intellectual pursuit is sometimes empty at best, or ego-driven at worst, often
with an undercurrent of hostility. I assure you that I am engaged (I read
every post, although lately I've been tempted to delete those from certain
members), and when I think that I have something major to contribute I will
joyfully
post here.

The recent discussions between certain members regarding David and the
purpose of this group; i.e., Drake, Z, and Monica, seem to have an arrogant and
hostile edge. There is a feeling or tone of superiority, separateness,
exclusivity, and over-all arrogance that prevails in these lengthy, often
verbose,
diatribes. Clarity is sometimes obscured by verbiage. I do believe that this is
subsiding and has run its course. I am writing as a lurker/observer to let it
be
known that we are quiet, but not silent. We are all learning and growing,
and sometimes what is reflected on this site is how we should not be, how we
should not relate to each other, as we grow towards fully acknowledging who we
are and our Oneness. It is not the criticism that I am referencing, but the tone
and the feeling of what the intent might be. This is intuitive on my part.
Thank you for this transparency. It is a lesson about all of our arrogance,
hostility, and feelings of separateness. What this has raised in me is the
reflection of me in these discussions. Now I will go back to my observer/lurker
status, continue to study in my slow process, and only post when I have
something of service to contribute. I am learning from all of this and I am
grateful.

In lakec'h,
I am another you...
Valerie Peace Raven



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Monica Leal]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=KYqK27-oyDefGuiw12VkILMsFx-p3z9TmqyhDCnN_IAt1Daaz-fuY_FB-s5R4kmZ2Dc807CdC2eKzP4i9g), "* Zia" <zia_19@h...> wrote:
>>even if David had not bared his soul, people would still feel more
>>endeared to him, simply because it's his forum! There is a loyalty
>>to David, whereas Drake is just `another member'
>
> HI Monica :) I would certainly agree with your perspective here.
>Yet the
> value of the forum is ALSO the people on the forum, equally,
>otherwise there
> would not be a forum :) In God's eyes we are ALL EQUAL :)
>

Zia, that is EXACTLY the point I have been trying to make! But
whenever I suggest that no one is 'above' anyone else, some people
tend to get defensive and think that I am not being 'loyal' to David.
How do we reconcile this dilemma? How do we all show respect to David
for the work he has done, while at the same time not elevate him above
the rest of us? For elevating him above us is contrary to LoO
principles, and is not fair to David; even detrimental to David and
his work.

> *Yes my husband is the same. Very much into the spiritual practices
>and
> growth, and wonders WHY I would even be sharing on a forum! I
>personally
> salute every man that chooses to share, because sharing was what >women
> seemed to do well together and for sooo long men felt very
>uncomfortable in
> doing, even amongst only men!

Ha, mine too! That is exactly how he is! That's why I am so amazed
that David is able to share so much, and I am also amazed that people
would expect other men to share that much too.

>
> *In observing from another forum some time ago with a similar number of
> 'active participants being number of email addresses etc', it would
seem
> that many log in, and may move on, yet leave their email address and
ability
> to look in from time to time on the forum.

Yes, very true. So it is misleading to think that all 800+ members of
this forum are necessarily paying any attention to what's going on.
The number of actual participants is usually much lower than the
number registered. This is true of ANY forum.

>
> *Hmm I wonder if this is still true, for there has been much benefit
>in
> others sharing. I would agree that 'each' sharing has value to the
>whole.
> It is also very tough to apply Lo0 if the foundation of the
>relationship is
> not based on this. In creating the foundation to our union: we
>chose to
> learn to love; unite as ONE, and UNITE in GOD/CREATOR/SOURCE

I agree. Thanks for sharing, Zia! Your previous post was wonderful as
well!