Community of Infinite Colour

[Bretloth]

Dont play the victim with me, wont get you anywhere. Don't make it personal, it's purely topical. You really do contridict yourself constantly Greg, if it's about people finding their own paths they do not need you. Nothing personal, just the truth.

[GregKasarik]

"Ironically, your belief that I am "starting a religeon and want to make philosophies cemented in place as written in stone law" illustrates the importance of both the Spiritual and Uncertainty Principles. It is obvious that in attempting to explain my philosophy, I have not been successful and that as a result, you have not understood what it is that I seek to create. This is precisely what the Spiritual Principle says will happen and precisely why it is such an important part of my philosophy."

Actually my belief is based upon your statement as follows ~

"I am seeking to cement in place the philosophy"

A philosophy regardless of what it is, cemented in place is a written in stone law.

 

I find it is always useful to quote a person in full, rather than selectively quoting in order to score some sort of rhetorical point. I find that it is the favoured tactic of both Theist and Atheist Fundamentalists and just a little bit dishonest.

What I actually said was "In making the Spiritual Principle a core part of Community, I am seeking to cement in place the philosophy that religious, spiritual and philosophical difference is the norm and is to be celebrated and enjoyed, not condemned and rejected."

So you object to my wanting to cement a philosophy of tolerance and openness, where difference is "celebrated and enjoyed"? You would rather see the spirit of the Enlightenment crushed underfoot in a world where difference is "condemned and rejected".

So you object to me wanting to "cement in place" a Religious Philosophy that says that nothing can ever be cemented in place? I'm surprised that the irony doesn't make your brain explode...

But I do wonder what your response would be to the Principles if I weren't writing from the perspective of a mystic. I suspect that much of your opposition has more to do with the idea that they are a religious philosophy, rather than purely philosophical. If so, I would encourage you to read them again, because nothing within the Principles themselves actually states that anything like a "Divine" even exists. They are 100% comparable with a secular and atheistic frame of reference and even the Omniscience Principle, which says that "God is You" merely says that if an omniscient being exists (see the Divine Principle) that being must be you (and everyone else...).

I don't see how community will promote exploration, more likely a community will decide rights and wrongs and promote obedience. Exploration has always been the realm of the individual free from the bonds of what others think, often despite what the majority think.

I think if you truly want to help people with your message, a self help book would be more appropriatte, then people could take it on board or not, without the judgement of a religeous community, even one that claims not to judge, but who are we kidding. Judgement is an essential part of life, without it we would fall for all kinds of scams ;)

 

I could write a self help book, and a few years ago, I did put some ideas together under the working title of "How to be not quite so fucked up". But the reality is that there are thousands of self help books out there, and the fact that people keep on buying them demonstrates that they simply don't work. They are often little more than aspirin for the soul.

I could become a Provisional Psychologist, if it weren't for the fact that the Psychologist Registration Board would immediately disbar me for my professed use of Transcendent Compounds. But even so, I am more of a Mystic. My talent, interest and passion have always revolved around the big questions and it is in relation to these questions that most of my key insights have occurred. I enjoy helping people, but would rather spend my time helping them grapple with questions of meaning, purpose and reality, which are often key to why people often feel that their lives are empty and pointless.

You are certainly correct when you quite reasonably point out that communities do tend to take on a life of their own. Despite my best intentions, it might be that Community ends up being the greatest force for evil that the world has ever known, but if so, it will be despite my intentions, rather than because of them. All I can do is try to learn from the mistakes of those who have preceded me and attempt to lay the foundations for something that will be a positive force in the world.

In all likelihood Community will simply disappear into the abyss of history. If I am successful, I would expect that Community of Infinite Colour fails to meet my highest aspirations, even as I hope that it never becomes the embodiment of my worst fears.

Despite this, it is my firm belief that if we are to ever escape the never ending scourge of sectarian violence and oppression, religion will need to evolve and to take on the sorts of characteristics that are embodied by the Principles. For questions for which there can never be answers, dogma and certitude is hardly the way forward.

[GregKasarik]

Dont play the victim with me, wont get you anywhere. Don't make it personal, it's purely topical. You really do contridict yourself constantly Greg, if it's about people finding their own paths they do not need you. Nothing personal, just the truth.

 

Of course people don't need me in order to find their own paths. They do it all the time and often without even realising it.

But far too often they believe that their path is the one true path and that all others should adhere to it. Just because someone is on their own path, it doesn't mean that they are tolerant of others. They confuse certitude with certainty and tragic consequences often result. Did I mention, Hong Xiuquan?

In any case, it seems that your mind is fully made up with respect to my objectives and motivations, so I see little to be gained by a continual rehashing of what I have already said. I'll end our conversation here, but am not adverse to continuing at a later date. By all means look me up if you are at EGA and want to continue the discussion in person.

Edit: I should point out that I need some time to think of how to best respond to your criticisms, not that I am seeking to evade them.

Edited November 25, 2011 by GregKasarik

[SunChaser]

What kind of egotistical cult leader actually tells people that "the least important part of this website is what I believe!" and that their is goal is for them to find their own paths, rather than blindly following anothers?

 

Being ambiguous is exactly what I would expect from an egotisical person wishing to be a cult leader.

Everything you say is ambiguous!

[Bretloth]

"What I actually said was "In making the Spiritual Principle a core part of Community, I am seeking to cement in place the philosophy that religious, spiritual and philosophical difference is the norm and is to be celebrated and enjoyed, not condemned and rejected."

So you object to my wanting to cement a philosophy of tolerance and openness, where difference is "celebrated and enjoyed"? You would rather see the spirit of the Enlightenment crushed underfoot in a world where difference is "condemned and rejected".

So you object to me wanting to "cement in place" a Religious Philosophy that says that nothing can ever be cemented in place? I'm surprised that the irony doesn't make your brain explode..."

LOL! Here we go, now Greg, dont go putting words in my mouth, that is very deceptive... All I said is that you want to cement in place a philosophy as you yourself state, and that no matter what that philosophy is, when cemented in place it is a written in stone law. Even if the law is to have no law, it's still a law. You cannot have laws and then say we have the freedom to find our own path, if you have cemented in place laws in your group joining would require submission to them, which is really not finding our own path after all, it's joining yours. No matter how delibrately ambiguous that path is, it is still the one you started, and would wield great power and control over.

Giving people the freedom to believe and practice their beliefs as they wish requires no group structure or leader. Freedom to find our own path requires no group structure or leader. Practicing tolerance requires no group structure or leader. Nothing you preach requires a group structure or leader.

Some peoples egos require a group structure to be the leader of for power and control, generally because of deep set feelings of insecurity and or psychopathic tendencies.

"But far too often they believe that their path is the one true path and that all others should adhere to it. Just because someone is on their own path, it doesn't mean that they are tolerant of others. They confuse certitude with certainty and tragic consequences often result." So controlling people in a group, forcing them to be tolerant with cemented in place laws, is itself a tolerant attitude?

A truly tolerant attitude would be to believe what you want, allow others to do the same and not start a cult, which by it's very nature has the inherent risk of creating intolerance, intolerance of others not in the group and intolerance of anything not approved by the group, the list goes on... I know you claim to be tolerant, and tolerance as a tenet of your religeon, and that's great on paper. Like our constitution, lots of great stuff written down, in practice, well we see how that goes don't we. I doubt any cult/religeon power structure ( and that is what is really is, and always has and will be, a power structure ) even with a constitution or tenets supposedly protecting individual rights, would ever work that way in reality. Sure as shit hasn't yet, I see nothing different here to dissuade me.

I know you like to keep it all vague and ambiguous, spin things around but you cannot run from the fact that starting a cult/religeon is always about the leader, and never about the leaders message. That's just the candy to suck in vulnerable minds. Your entire message requires no group or leader, which leads me to believe that your message is not your true intent, the power structure that a religeon is no matter how losely defined, is your intent. You have made no reasnoble arguement justifying the need for your group, or you to lead it, just for your message which needs niether.

I have no doubt you will reply spouting more of your message which is not the point, i'm not against your message. The point is you want to start a religeon, a cult. Which no matter its tenets will afford you great control and influence over any and all who join. And when there is no need for the group or leader in your own tenets, the great control and influence over any all who join would be through a process of elimination the only remaining intent, unless you are just bat shit fucking crazy. In my honest opinion.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Bretloth

[drugo]

the whole one man takes-on religion trip is usually unbalanced and grandiose and no doubt authoritarian and narcissistic --- regardless of how crafted these criticisms are integrated into the person's mission or how aware the leader or 'guide' is of his impact on followers or 'participants'.

Read with slow hollywood narrator voice, "One mystic... against all odds... brings peace, and, tolerence, to, earth".

I find overly structured (and highly psychologised) renditions of the ineffable a tad patronising and exhausting and clunky.

Why go to such lengths to intellectualise the divine? Is the cogito not primarily an assemblage of control that is used for holding things at a distance, for abstracting, organising, structuring, and codifying? Parables and story are surely much more holistic and humane channels for engaging with religious truths than the reductiveness of Principles and paradoxical theories. The eternal power of mystery to excite the broad spectrums of human phenomenology and creative agency appears to be much more alive in narratives and the mythic imagination than in logic-structures. This may help account for why religious groups across history embody story as absolutely key to cosmology and soteriology. We live a story, not a theory.

The desire to overly consult the cogito as the centre channel of religious truth may partially account for why one-man-designer religions seem to (whether they realise it or not) risk creating covert forms of oppression, which include the real risks of dissociating agency from disciples (or subtle psychic colonisation; the attempting to craft 'lost' or curious people into structures in the leaders head).

Terms such as 'freedom' and 'tolerence' are extremely contingent and relative to things such as history, language, culture, politics, and motivations. To not only assume your view of these concepts as universal but to prescribe them to religion proper shows a good case of BIG HEAD syndrome.

a few excerpts from transmet, its a bit over the top, but interesting n funny

see complete story here

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/22160-excerpt-from-warren-elliss-transmetropolitan/

Edited November 27, 2011 by entheophanic

[Mycot]

I believe that upon death this imposed ignorance will be lifted and I will see those things that I currently can not. Death holds the key.

 

Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing.

~ Gnostic Gospel of Philip ~

Strive to discover the mystery before life is taken from you. If while living you fail to find yourself, to know yourself, how will you be able to understand the secret of your existence when you die?

~ Attar ~

Edited November 26, 2011 by Mycot

[CβL]

To sum things up, I think your religion is contradictory on two key points:

1) It claims to be fluid and flexible.

2) It also happens to be all encompassing. A religion without open questions is as faithful to reality as a linear equation. How can there be a journey if you've provided the destination?

[dworx]

abandoned

Edited April 4, 2013 by dworx

[mutant]

yeah, give the guy a break!

and i am a fucking atheist!

[Bretloth]

I've seen up close and personal what cults do to people, they all claim high and lofty ideals but the reality is so very different. Wake the fuck up. Metaphysical used car sales man deserve nothing but derision..

Edited November 27, 2011 by Bretloth

[Sheather]

and demonstrates your own failure to understand what it is that I am trying to create.

you fail to understand.

just to remind people not to think they actually understand what I mean to communicate.

It is obvious that in attempting to explain my philosophy, I have not been successful and that as a result, you have not understood what it is that I seek to create.

You are doing a remarkable job of sounding like a holier than thou. If you believe your understandings and paths aren't important, why are you trying to spread these mysterious understandings couched in unusual phrasing and idiotic paradoxes. Either through your lacking ability to communicate your ideas, or the lack of this community's understanding of your words, it is fairly apparent that we do not see what you have to say in the same manner that you do.

As far as I can see, the cult leader attitude of Bretloth isn't too far off the mark.

[mutant]

it happens that when someone is burnt by something, he is more prejudiced afterwards. Understandable.

I blame people [especially parents who bring their kids in this shit] , not cult leaders, but some of them where very bad people.

If a cult is honest, then it is usually much better than any monotheistic religion anyways

[FancyPants]

You are certainly correct when you quite reasonably point out that communities do tend to take on a life of their own. Despite my best intentions, it might be that Community ends up being the greatest force for evil that the world has ever known, but if so, it will be despite my intentions, rather than because of them. All I can do is try to learn from the mistakes of those who have preceded me and attempt to lay the foundations for something that will be a positive force in the world.

 

It is my personal belief (at this point in my musings at least) that the man known as Jesus/Yeshua/Christ was a pre-ascended human who performed "miracles" (hands on healing etc) with gnostic knowledge who gave his admirers a vast amount of wisdom, insight, and general principles in order for people to help themselves. Seems much like what you appear to be trying to convey. However, it's extremely clear (IMHO) that Yeshua's teachings were extremely perverted by those humans who wished to remain in power (ie the "only" apparent link between humans and the Source - whatever you call it) and look how that turned out. What makes you think your written ideals aren't going to cause the same effect? I think we as earthly spirits have come a long way in general, but have also regressed in other ways; I'm not sure We are ready for that corruption to not occur again. It's also my belief that God/Source/Whatever actually wants us to evolve ourselves; ie we shouldn't need the constant crutch of a christfigure anymore. We should be getting in touch with the Source through our SELVES. So while I think you also agree with that same idea, I think to take the learning Path from people (or to say we don't need it) has the same effect of spiritual isolation. Not to say that a person can't change their mind, but if you're in a position of knowing people need to find their paths in their own journey to the Source and you subversively take it from them, surely you yourself are going down egotistical roads that isn't going to help your own advancement at the very least?

Who the hell am I to say though? I actually do like the term " Community of Infinite Colour" to me it denotes the full spectrum of everything (I love the idea that there is no good/bad, just eternal shades of grey) and the beauty of all in between. Colour is only still one sense of a waveform, so sound is necessarily left out, but I still like it

the whole one man takes-on religion trip is usually unbalanced and grandiose and no doubt authoritarian and narcissistic --- regardless of how crafted these criticisms are integrated into the person's mission or how aware the leader or 'guide' is of his impact on followers or 'participants'.

Read with slow hollywood narrator voice, "One mystic... against all odds... brings peace, and, tolerence, to, earth".

I find overly structured (and highly psychologised) renditions of the ineffable a tad patronising and exhausting and clunky.

Why go to such lengths to intellectualise the divine? Is the cogito not primarily an assemblage of control that is used for holding things at a distance, for abstracting, organising, structuring, and codifying? Parables and story are surely much more holistic and humane channels for engaging with religious truths than the reductiveness of Principles and paradoxical theories. The eternal power of mystery to excite the broad spectrums of human phenomenology and creative agency appears to be much more alive in narratives and the mythic imagination than in logic-structures. This may help account for why religious groups across history embody story as absolutely key to cosmology and soteriology. We live a story, not a theory.

The desire to overly consult the cogito as the centre channel of religious truth may partially account for why one-man-designer religions seem to (whether they realise it or not) risk creating covert forms of oppression, which include the real risks of dissociating agency from disciples (or subtle psychic colonisation; the attempting to craft 'lost' or curious people into structures in the leaders head).

Terms such as 'freedom' and 'tolerence' are extremely contingent and relative to things such as history, language, culture, politics, and motivations. To not only assume your view of these concepts as universal but to prescribe them to religion proper shows a good case of BIG HEAD syndrome.

 

I like this a lot. A parable can fit an ideal into any personal mould. One doesn't need an ACTUAL log of wood in the eye to get the point of the looking after your own self before trying to fix anyone else.

[Thelema]

one could say that the world as it is ALREADY IS a community of infinite colour.

[GregKasarik]

@ Bretloth. It is obvious to me that this isn't really about me, or Community. Its about your hangups and issues. There is clearly a lot of anger there, and I've discovered over the years that there isn't really a hell of a lot anyone can say until you are prepared to put the anger aside and talk to me like a human, rather than the assumed representative of something that you hate.

You are trying to control the conversation by using of the word "cult" in the perjorative sense of the word and are then using that in order to make a whole range of baseless and silly assertions:

I know you like to keep it all vague and ambiguous, spin things around but you cannot run from the fact that starting a cult/religeon is always about the leader, and never about the leaders message. That's just the candy to suck in vulnerable minds.

Some peoples egos require a group structure to be the leader of for power and control, generally because of deep set feelings of insecurity and or psychopathic tendencies.

You write alot and say very little, typical of cult leaders.

In philosophy we call it "begging the question". It is where you make an assertion as part of the argument an then use that assertion as the conclusion of the argument. In this case, you say that I am seeking to form a "cult" and then draw a whole raft of daft conclusions regarding who I am, what motivates me and likely outcomes, all based on that assertion.

But you don't know me. You have nothing to base your opinions on beyond your own prejudice and an overwhelming sense of misplaced umbrage.

Here's a novel concept. Why not judge me on what I say and do, not on what you fear and loath.

I find it quite ironic that you are so rabidly intolerant of the very idea of an organisation that seeks to promote tolerance and foster independence of thought. It is quite sad really, because it speaks volumes about where you are at.

I am setting up a New Religious Movement. I regard myself as someone who has something worthwhile to say and hope that people will listen to me. I'm also prepared to make the sacrifices in order to move my vision forward. If this is enough to get your knickers into such a frothing twist, then you really need to have a look in the mirror of life. I'm not going to change on account of your invective, so I suggest that you just get over it.

Freedom to find our own path requires no group structure or leader. Practicing tolerance requires no group structure or leader. Nothing you preach requires a group structure or leader.

This is where you are wrong. Many people are terribly uncertain of themselves do require leadership and encouragement in order to find their own path. Billions of people around the world live lives of blinkered ignorance and submission, because they have never been given permission to set their minds free, or because they live in fear of what would happen if they did. The overwhelming power of cultural intolerance forces people to go with the herd and adopt the attitudes of those around them. We are some of the freest societies in the world, but I've still been persecuted on account of my religious practice and there is nothing I can do about it, because my religious practice is at best marginal and worst illegal. I am here doing this, because my life has reached the point where I have no other choice.

I am of the belief that there is a need for an organisation that states the bloody obvious: That people can never be certain about the reality that they inhabit and they need to take an active role in determining their own reality. There is a need for an organisation that can and will promote tolerance of divergent viewpoints and seek to embed this value into the dominant cultural values. There is a need for an organisation that would oppose those who would say that their view of the Divine is the only view of the Divine and that all others should be condemned and crucified.

But you are right in saying that people don't need an organisation in order to be free. So, when I have achieved my aims, and our culture is one that celebrates tolerance and truly free expression, then I will happily ride off into the sunset. But until that day, don't expect me to renounce my goals.

Semantic games over what is "cemented in place" is a silly waste of time. A large segment of the Philosophy is based on the Uncertainty Principle. I'm very definite about that. And if you read the Principles, you can see that Community of Infinite Colour is based on 11 of the damned things. Funny that I should want to have some sort of structure in place that actually says where I am coming from and what I hope to achieve.

If you don't like them, or agree with them, then here's a tip: Don't join! Problem solved.

[Bretloth]

For a start you don't have a community, that's why you're here. You assume much. Baseless assertions? How so? You say you are starting a religeon, a religeon is a cult, you are the leader as you claim, therefore you are a cult leader, or wannabe cult leader more correctly. Cult leader various studies have shown are generally insecure and or psychopathic. You write paragraphs of drivel which a sentence would have covered. You try to make it about me when the discussion is you, and your cult you are trying to start. Typically deceptive of you from what I have seen here. I judge you on what you write, nothing more. Are we not to question and think for our selves? How is that about anything but the facts? Attempting to character assasinatte people who question is also a typical cult tactic. I'm just informed about your type, not angry at all. Why would I be? I wont be joining dont worry about that. Dont need some self important holier than thou wannabe cult leader telling me what to do lol..

One other thing I find amusing, if you are this enlightened leader, how come everything you preach is plagerized? Do you have anything original?

Edited November 28, 2011 by Bretloth

[GregKasarik]

the whole one man takes-on religion trip is usually unbalanced and grandiose and no doubt authoritarian and narcissistic --- regardless of how crafted these criticisms are integrated into the person's mission or how aware the leader or 'guide' is of his impact on followers or 'participants'.

Perhaps. Although, you would have to argue the same thing about every person who has ever had a vision for a better future, or sought to go up against the odds, or to change the world they live in, or who has ever aspired to a leadership position.

In fact fairly much anyone in history who has ever been original.

I find overly structured (and highly psychologised) renditions of the ineffable a tad patronising and exhausting and clunky.

You find my musings on the nature of things to be "patronising", but see no problem with asserting that I am most likely "unbalanced and grandiose and no doubt authoritarian and narcissistic".

You'll excuse me if I don't aspire to be you.

Why go to such lengths to intellectualise the divine?

Because I enjoy doing it? Because I love philosophy, psychology and understanding things on a rational level?

I also happen to think that the intellectualisation found within the Principles happens to be precisely what is needed for people living in a rational age. Much of the current angst generated by religion is because people have improperly assumed that their stories are in fact literal truths.

Is the cogito not primarily an assemblage of control that is used for holding things at a distance, for abstracting, organising, structuring, and codifying? Parables and story are surely much more holistic and humane channels for engaging with religious truths than the reductiveness of Principles and paradoxical theories. The eternal power of mystery to excite the broad spectrums of human phenomenology and creative agency appears to be much more alive in narratives and the mythic imagination than in logic-structures. This may help account for why religious groups across history embody story as absolutely key to cosmology and soteriology. We live a story, not a theory.

If I were a story teller, I would tell stories. Mine is a different journey.

I would suggest that stories themselves are not enough. It is true that throug out the ages, religions have told stories. But those who prefer different stories have spent much of their time killing each other over which stories to tell, rather than engaging with the mystery, narrative and mythic imagination.

The desire to overly consult the cogito as the centre channel of religious truth may partially account for why one-man-designer religions seem to (whether they realise it or not) risk creating covert forms of oppression, which include the real risks of dissociating agency from disciples (or subtle psychic colonisation; the attempting to craft 'lost' or curious people into structures in the leaders head).

And you are an expert on comparative religion, specialising in the emergence of new religious movements?

Of course not...

Every new organisation, philosophy, or theory carry the risk of "creating covert forms of oppression". All we can do is acknowledge this risk and move forward in the best way that we know how. If we failed to act because we were intimidated by the risks and potential pitfalls, we'd never step out our doors.

Terms such as 'freedom' and 'tolerence' are extremely contingent and relative to things such as history, language, culture, politics, and motivations. To not only assume your view of these concepts as universal but to prescribe them to religion proper shows a good case of BIG HEAD syndrome.

And you think I'm patronising?

Why not actually respond to something that I actually wrote instead of just making stuff up and spouting irrelevant speculation?

[GregKasarik]

To sum things up, I think your religion is contradictory on two key points:

1) It claims to be fluid and flexible.

2) It also happens to be all encompassing. A religion without open questions is as faithful to reality as a linear equation. How can there be a journey if you've provided the destination?

 

I would suggest that I have not provided a destination at all. In fact quite the reverse.

What is the destination that believe that I have provided?

[GregKasarik]

Greg the more i read on your site the more i think you are a marvelous human being. You have sacrificed yourself [in effect] for the people by writing to the powers that be and basically telling them you use the sacraments that they deem as dangerous drugs. You have used their own laws to show them how they are tramping on the peoples rightt o freedom of thought and religion and by doing so freedom of self. You are a very courageous person, thankyou.

 

And thank you for the positive feelings and sentiment.

It is reassuring that there are some who can appreciate what it is that I am attempting to do and it is comments and feedback such as yours which encourage me to keep on going.

I had spent quite a bit of time writing that first submission and am quite proud of it. I probably linked to another webpage for the image on that page, or it could just be my website builder, which is very ordinary indeed.

Thanks again for the good feedback. I will do my very best to not let you down.

[dworx]

abandoned

Edited April 4, 2013 by dworx

[GregKasarik]

It is my personal belief (at this point in my musings at least) that the man known as Jesus/Yeshua/Christ was a pre-ascended human who performed "miracles" (hands on healing etc) with gnostic knowledge who gave his admirers a vast amount of wisdom, insight, and general principles in order for people to help themselves. Seems much like what you appear to be trying to convey. However, it's extremely clear (IMHO) that Yeshua's teachings were extremely perverted by those humans who wished to remain in power (ie the "only" apparent link between humans and the Source - whatever you call it) and look how that turned out. What makes you think your written ideals aren't going to cause the same effect?

I don't. Like anybody, I have no control over what other people do. I am not omniscient, particularly holy, or in any way different from many other people.

I can only do my best and endeavour to try and make sure that anything I build has the best chance of creating positive influence in the world.

I think we as earthly spirits have come a long way in general, but have also regressed in other ways; I'm not sure We are ready for that corruption to not occur again. It's also my belief that God/Source/Whatever actually wants us to evolve ourselves; ie we shouldn't need the constant crutch of a christfigure anymore. We should be getting in touch with the Source through our SELVES. So while I think you also agree with that same idea, I think to take the learning Path from people (or to say we don't need it) has the same effect of spiritual isolation. Not to say that a person can't change their mind, but if you're in a position of knowing people need to find their paths in their own journey to the Source and you subversively take it from them, surely you yourself are going down egotistical roads that isn't going to help your own advancement at the very least?

In many ways, I think that you have hit the nail on the head. In acting, I might end up creating something that will repudiate the very choice that I am seeking to enshrine. But as any psychologist will tell you, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. The past behaviour of our species has been dominated by intolerance, arising from certitude. If I act, things might change. If I don't then I am only doing my bit to guarantee that they stay the same.

Ego can be an issue, but I don't believe that it will be too much of a concern. Firstly, because I learnt years ago to take criticism on the chin and to accept honestly provided feedback. I have surrounded myself with a core group of people who won't be afraid to tell me when, or if I am getting too big for my boots.

Secondly, because despite the much baseless assertion that I am been driven into this by everything ranging from sociopathy, to narcissistic personality disorder, to assorted insecurities, I am actually blessed with a much more stable personality than people seem to give me credit for.

Who the hell am I to say though? I actually do like the term " Community of Infinite Colour" to me it denotes the full spectrum of everything (I love the idea that there is no good/bad, just eternal shades of grey) and the beauty of all in between. Colour is only still one sense of a waveform, so sound is necessarily left out, but I still like it

I like the name as well!

You have picked up admirably on the intent behind the name and yes, like any metaphor it will never be perfect. I could probably have called it "Community of Infinite", but I feel that that is too abstract.

Or perhaps it is because I am a visual person.

[GregKasarik]

yeah, give the guy a break!

and i am a fucking atheist!

 

Thank you. I appreciate that I'm not the only one who thinks that some are being a bit unreasonable.

Although I shouldn't really complain. If this is what happens on a thread where people are sympathetic to the use of Transcendent Compounds, I hate to think of what awaits me in the real world.

I'm thinking I need the practice of learning to respond calmly to whatever sticks are hurled my way.

one could say that the world as it is ALREADY IS a community of infinite colour.

 

Very wise. You are 100% correct!

Now all we need to do is learn to accept this truth.

[GregKasarik]

Greg remember one thing you cant let me down, you cant let anyone else down you can only let yourself down, If you beleive strongly enough in anything and then turn your back on it you have failed yourself, please don't do that I beleive you are on a righteous path, follow it to the end:)

 

Thanks again, although I think that the possibility that I might let others down is one of my big motivators for making sure that I don't let myself down.

I don't know about being on a "righteous path", but I do know that I am on the "right" path for this particular life.

Cheers

[dworx]