[true]

Wow! Flood control. Now that's necessary! All the hundreds of posts coming in at once! :lol:


Okay, a short, concise discussion.
Two things come to mind:

1. I wanted to point out that if something or someone or someone's actions, etc, seem familiar to you, perhaps it is because you are occupying a familiar AP position. It is unwarrior-like conduct to lay blame at others feet. By labelling someone or something... labels like "old" and "new", or "teacher", or "too bookish", or any such label... you are in essence blaming them for your perception... that is, acting as if you perceive truly and clearly and actually, instead of the reality that you are perceiving your own thought projections, ie. self-reflection.

2. As moderator, is that something that you take sincerely, or is it just fallen to you as the creator of this web page? I ask because it's a big responsibility. As moderator, you have to be the picture of moderation. I see labels as preventing you from fulfilling such a task. Labels are not moderate. They are commitments, even if you cover your ass by saying you're not 100% sure. What is the purpose in posting speculations? There are many things about moderation I could point out.

So this doesn't have to be a discussion. I just felt obligated to point them out. Maybe I'm trying to see if you're sincere. Maybe I want to see if I can expose the excuses you give yourself with labels, what will you do? What will fill that hole?

Oh, here's another one: a warrior doesn't have the luxury of choice. If you engage someone, by labelling them, you don't get to excuse yourself because their response is too long, and (again) blame them for your clinging to concepts. You commit yourself when you label someone. And if my post to you gets "miles" long, perhaps it's because there's so much shit I'm trying to point out. Drop the crap and my posts will become shorter. I promise. But if you could drop the shit, it probably wouldn't be there to be pointed at.

Here are just three things. I could go on, but I've already snuck the third in and am risking lengthiness.

[ensonar]

1. You are probably correct.

2. As a moderator, especially on a forum like this, I don't intend to do much as far as moderation. I may hold back my feelings at times, I may express them at others. If I feel that my expressed feelings were wrong, I won't hesitate to express those new feelings. I haven't yet actually felt the need to moderate anything other than deleting spam. I initiated this website, because I felt that currently, there was a void of this specific type of site online. My only intention is to create a space for people who had similiar interests to discuss issues related to Nagualism.

3. A warrior doesn't have the luxury of choice? I don't believe that for a second. When I express my feelings by being a jerk, labelling someone, etc., I'm only adding to the theatre of my perception. I can then watch the drama unfold and try and pay attention to how I want to deal with the outcome, so that perhaps I can make a better choice next time.

[true]

Thank you for letting me know your intent towards moderation. If I were in your shoes, that seems like a pretty good stance.

I don't imagine you would mind, so I'll go ahead and argue the third point, attempting to not personalize anything.

Since we are speaking about a warrior, and not you or me, what we do or believe is inconsequential. A warrior has to follow the rule. He is a slave to the rule. He has no choice. Even when he "surpasses" the rule, if there is such an event, he is then a slave to spirit and still has no choice. (IMO, being a slave to spirit is the same event as when one no longer has a "me". Without thought and mind, there is only one present moment, and so no choice but to live it; whereas with thought and mind, we have the seeming choice to alter or avoid the present "what is". But this alteration or avoidance only appear to happen in the mind - "what is" still is unaltered, still present, unescapable.)

You and I can make all the choices we want; but a warrior cannot. Let's take the part of the warrior's way called impeccability. In any given moment, there is one thing that is the most impeccable. Not two things. So no choice. If we can choose, what's the point of impeccability?

As personal examples that we might relate to:
We can choose to form an opinion of someone or something and thus dismiss it as known, but that's not being a warrior as it leaves energy tied up in a belief, and acts as an anchor of sorts in infinity.
Can we choose to do better next time, to become better warriors, to hone our art? Or have we crossed the point of no return? Could you really stop doing this, ever? B)

I don't think so. You have no choice.