I Am That I Am & Those Religious Movements

[Ouroboros]

May I ask, why you think his claim to Jewish heritage and being a Rabbi was a lie?

This is what I recall from what I managed to read:

He claimed he was born in Texas, with Jewish influence, then he moved to Israel and worked for a secret organisation seeing things that would scare us, working on some super network artificial intelligence (on internet I think) or whatever, and on top of that he was a rabbi. And retired from the secret organisation.

 

 

I found out that he now live in Texas again, and using internet through a dial-up modem.

 

 

In my opinion he was showing extreme paranoia for a Jewish conspiracy taking over the world. (Or Jewry that he was referring to) He claimed the Jews were teaching their kids racism, because of their religion. He was certain that the truth about science and religion was being withheld by powerful men. He had different theories about black holes etc. And the only area that I could say I was a bit more impressed in was the discussion about Artificial Intelligence, because it showed more details of thought, rather than the sweeping statements like "too complicated to explain", or "it would take 50 pages to explain." Considering how much he wrote, he could have written those 50 pages and explained it instead of saying it how much it would take to do it. In my eyes that's an exaggeration just to point the finger away from the fact that he didn't know what to say at the moment. I even think that some of the ideas were straight out from books, rather than his own ideas. (I'm a bit harsh here, sorry, but that's how he came across to me.)

 

When he got under pressure he sounded more like a 20 year old than a full grown man, which made me very suspicious about his claims of his past.

 

But all this are my opinions, and I could be wrong. (my little disclaimer there... )

 

 

 

I would go with #3.

 

What creeped me out was the way he would refer to 'the Jewery'. To me, that's both pretentious and kind of weird. Who says 'Jewery', fer chrissakes?

 

He also seems very comfortable labeling large groups of people with very simple, reductionist tags.

We maybe misunderstood his statements about the Jews, and much more of what he said, because he was very black-and-white in his statements. He wouldn't say "some" or "maybe" or "sometimes" or "possible", but made it always very categorical. That could because of language problems (being from Israel - not knowing English that well), or because he wasn't mature enough to understand the subtle differences (basically not as old as he pretended).

[Vigile]

I would have argued with Ssel, but I never could figure out what the fuck he was saying.

 

That's exactly right. He talked a lot but I don't think he ever really said anything. I'm confused with the opinions here that he had something to contribute.

[Amanda]

I would have argued with Ssel, but I never could figure out what the fuck he was saying.

 

That's exactly right. He talked a lot but I don't think he ever really said anything. I'm confused with the opinions here that he had something to contribute.

 

Vigile del Fuoco 1, I am use to working with people put into positions according to their skills and/or abilities to interact with people. It is therefore somewhat easy for me to disregard people's lack of consideration for others and to seek to understand other skills they may harbor. I was hoping this site could help Ssel change his condescending methods, as I feel this site has helped me tremendously in areas of my life. (IMO, there is a point where one has to weigh all aspects and I think this site's staff has always exercised remarkably good judgement.)

 

Other threads of Ssel revealed someone who has a somewhat pantheistic belief, like me. I consider, for the moment, that everything is part of "God" and therefore worthy of honor and respect. If everything is basically part of one's self, how could anything be better than itself? Knowing that Ssel seemed to have much of this same belief system, see debate with Bruce, then I just thought he had these tactless people skills probably due to the nature of some job he had, and therefore being misunderstood.

 

As far as contributions he made, the original topic of this thread is basically in regards to his ideas. That, if nothing else, seems to have furthered appreciative contributions by others.

[not1not2]

Back on topic...

 

Anybody ever heard of Indra's net??

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.heartspace.org/misc/IndraNet.html

 

It originated in Vedic tradition, I believe the Ramayana. It's the same concept as 'seeing the world in a grain of sand', except on an expanded level. In this metaphor, every percievable object in existence contains the mark of all other objects in existence. To me it seems to be the basis of non-dual philosophy in Brahmanism/Hinduism. It also seems to correspond with recent developments in theoretical physics.

 

Not1not2, I have read that in the dynamics of personality, we often identify ourselves with the reflection of ourselves we see from others. Also, my understanding of a hologram is that each piece of it has the total makeup of it all. I'm curious as to how each object in existence contains the mark of all other objects in existence, is corresponding with theoretical physics?

 

Let me start off by saying that 1)it is an analogy, and therefore an imperfect representation of reality, and 2)it is used like a koan to display a certain point of teaching to a practitioner of spiritual discipline, as a compliment to a philosophical system which the practitioner is well grounded in (in this case buddhism).

 

The teaching here is one of inter-dependence and inter-relatedness. It also suggests the holographic nature of the phenomenal universe. It's basically a macrocosm/microcosm thing.

 

And it expands on the notion of how we "identify ourselves with the reflection of ourselves we see from others". It adds that our notions of others is also shaped in a similar fashion. It goes further to say that even our perception of inanimate objects directly shape our sense of self. In other words, we define 'ourselves' in relation to our environment (including sense perceptions, feelings and thoughts) and we also define objects in relation to other objects and our feelings and our thoughts.

 

From an energy standpoint, there is some theoretical physics which suggest that all objects have some influence over one another. Planet earth's 'gravity' distorts space time in such a way that it affects all other heavenly bodies (though on a negligable level). Similarly, every action that is taken is directly linked to a previous action and will be similarly linked to future events (kind of like the butterfly effect).

 

It also corresponds to the hindu idea of Maya (illusion or illusory existence).

 

Does this help?

 

_/\_

[Amanda]

Does this help?

 

_/\_

 

Thanks.

[Asuryan]

I would have argued with Ssel, but I never could figure out what the fuck he was saying.

 

That's exactly right. He talked a lot but I don't think he ever really said anything.

 

You both have summed it up perfectly.

However, I remember the Israelian Rabbi working for a secret intelligence agency (and trained from birth to become a philosopher specialized in words usage...) bit too. Either he really believes all of this shit and he's completely crazy, or he's just a fake that likes to troll around a bit too much for his own well being and needs help with his life (maybe finding a job too, so he would have less free time on his hands to troll around?).

 

[Ouroboros]

...

However, I remember the Israelian Rabbi working for a secret intelligence agency (and trained from birth to become a philosopher specialized in words usage...) bit too.

...

Did he say that too? I missed that one. That's a really good one, proves the point that he was a fake even more. He sucked in "words usage". (And that was the nicest way I could come of saying it.)

 

It cracked me up when he used the word "sight" instead of "site".

 

Or the definition of "human", that was incredible funny. Consider that we don't have the word "human" in Swedish, but we have the word "människa". So where does this "hu" meaning lower kind of etc, when we don't have that word in Swedish? Is it "iska" instead?

[Asuryan]

 

Or the definition of "human", that was incredible funny. Consider that we don't have the word "human" in Swedish, but we have the word "människa". So where does this "hu" meaning lower kind of etc, when we don't have that word in Swedish? Is it "iska" instead?

 

I missed the "human" definition thing, some of his posts just didn't deserve more than a superficial skimming.

I think he said the philosopher specialized in words usage (trained from birth) thing in this same thread, right before Antlerman told him that he is psycho.

[Ouroboros]

 

Or the definition of "human", that was incredible funny. Consider that we don't have the word "human" in Swedish, but we have the word "människa". So where does this "hu" meaning lower kind of etc, when we don't have that word in Swedish? Is it "iska" instead?

 

I missed the "human" definition thing, some of his posts just didn't deserve more than a superficial skimming.

I think he said the philosopher specialized in words usage (trained from birth) thing in this same thread, right before Antlerman told him that he is psycho.

Antlerman told him he was psycho? DAMN! I MISSED THAT TOO!!! I have to find it...

[Saviourmachine]

I see Ssel became prey in this pit of lions? That's a pity. I hoped he would have stayed in the Collosseum. That's more where he belongs. He's definitely a grown up man. Maybe a bit rusty in his manners, but who cares? He is what he is. Quite human. Maybe he's a bit alienated from the rest of humankind. But consider for example an author of Urantia. How would you think he/she would came across? I did like to read his ideas about consciousness. Although I disagreed very often. I'm currently graduating, and I've a lot of books that I want to read. I've to finish Penrose and read some essays from Searle to recapitulate what I managed to know until now.

 

The information handling capacity of my brain is severely limited. That was a joke. Look - because I manage to use these kinds of sentences in my text and Ssel does use the opposite - does mean nothing at all. Maybe I'm floating in self-gratification. Do you get the picture? That's pretty nasty stuff to float in.

 

I don't think Ssel fits the label "fundamentalist".

[Cerise]

The information handling capacity of my brain is severely limited. That was a joke. Look - because I manage to use these kinds of sentences in my text and Ssel does use the opposite - does mean nothing at all. Maybe I'm floating in self-gratification. Do you get the picture? That's pretty nasty stuff to float in.

 

 

Ummmm....coherency please? Sorry Savior, but I have NO idea wtf you are saying here. Break it down into simple language for the plebes please.

[Alice]

The contribution someone else can make to our lives and understanding is always limited. It is as limited by our own capacity to receive the contribution and to understand as it is by the ability to contribute and be understood.

 

I have no problem believing that Ssel was as old as the hills when it is understood in the context of his beliefs about eternal life.

 

If he's not coming back - then maybe its turns out he is a quitter and that disappoints me.

 

My view of him is that he is a firm believer in the advantages of letting other people work things out for themselves. This stance is always a conundrum for a 'teacher' ... just how much do you leave to others to work out for themselves and how much do you 'teach'.

 

I think his button pushing was always deliberate and that he genuinely believed there were important lessons to be learnt from recognising what rouses us and why.

 

Now one approach is to say - 'yeah but look at what rouses Ssel - hah hah look at how emotional he is - pot kettle black - that told Ssel'

 

Another approach is to say 'stuff Ssel's limitations, what have I learnt about me and mine'.

 

 

He got pissed at me. So he left. But I don't know if he's planning on coming back when he's cooled down or not.

 

Last thing he told me that I had become what I feared... whatever that means, since I'm not sure what I fear. I don't know anything that I can become that I also fear... (Hotdog?... no, I can't become a hot dog, and I don't fear them... Maybe a mailman? Nah, don't fear them either. Maybe I've become a loaded shotgun? Sure, I don't like one in my face, but how can I become one?... so I'm not sure...)

 

Hans - do you really not know what you fear?

[Ouroboros]

Hans - do you really not know what you fear?

At this moment, no. Of course in a dangerous situation I would fear to get hurt, or my family get hurt and things like that. But I don't know how I can "become" those things? Ssel told me I had become what I feared. And the only interpretation I have is that he thought I feared strong government, censorship and secret societies the way he did, and when I started to push him and question him, he had to push back by telling me what he thought would rattle me. It didn't, because I don't fear those things.

 

And when it comes to Ssel reacting emotionally, it was wrong of him, since he demanded other people to argue without emotions, while he would be allowed to. He demanded no one "blaming" (as he called it) him, but he was "blaming" himself. Now, I didn't pick on him for those things, but I did pick on him for being very black-and-white and categorical, and only pointed out that I didn't believe the statement he said about emotions was true, but he got very upset, and that must have been rooted in his fear of governments and censorship. Him and I had that discussion once before, when I told him that not all Jews are racists, and that he should refrain from such statements, and he started screaming "bloody censorship". His opinion about censorship was that if one moderator told him what was not approved on this site, that would constitute censorship. While for me, censorship is when you delete of reinforce rules. Like if I had deleted his posts, that would have been censorship in my opinion, not when telling him what was approved behavior.

 

The other thing was that he was sidetracking issues in the Colosseum, and people complained, so I stepped in and told him not to veer off, and that upset him tremendously. And he demanded me to stop sidetracking by telling him this, and then he tell me to not sidetrack in the Lion's Den. When I tried to explain the difference to him, he got even more upset, and he obviously felt persecuted. Probably he added me to the list of people involved with the Illuminate, and I was yet another person that tried to control him.

 

I can understand that it upsets some people that he's gone, and some people are glad that he's gone. Do understand that it was not my purpose to kick him out, but to get him off his high horses and try to understand when people have a different opinion, and maybe he could listen and learn too. I think I tried my best to keep him here, and it was his choice to go. And in my opinion something was fishy about that cat.

[Alice]

Thanks for responding so thoroughly Hans, (I'm not meaning to be difficult about any of this BTW - I find the continuing discussion really useful)

 

Ssel told me I had become what I feared. And the only interpretation I have is that he thought I feared strong government, censorship and secret societies the way he did, and when I started to push him and question him, he had to push back by telling me what he thought would rattle me. It didn't, because I don't fear those things.

 

I agree that this could be a case of Ssel projecting onto you those things he fears himself. That is a very human trait and I guess we all do it to an extent much of the time (not necessarily with fears)

 

However I don't think he acutually 'fears' these things in the way it has apparently been widely understood. I think Ssel was wanting to flush out those who think this way in a 'conspiracy' theory kind of way and those who dismiss such concerns as 'oh that's just conspiracy theory baloney'. I think he was wanting to challenge both these standpoints.

 

And when it comes to Ssel reacting emotionally, it was wrong of him, since he demanded other people to argue without emotions, while he would be allowed to. He demanded no one "blaming" (as he called it) him, but he was "blaming" himself.

 

I'm not sure that Ssel was reacting emotionally - I think he gave that appearance in the same way he deliberately pressed buttons - because he was hoping that people would examine their reactions and learn from it. Whether this is a wise approach or not - I don't know!

 

I do not doubt for one moment that you tried your best to keep him here.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for responding so thoroughly Hans, (I'm not meaning to be difficult about any of this BTW - I find the continuing discussion really useful)

Not a problem. And I do understand that some need to discuss this and get a better understanding. And I'm not against open dialogues.

 

Ssel told me I had become what I feared. And the only interpretation I have is that he thought I feared strong government, censorship and secret societies the way he did, and when I started to push him and question him, he had to push back by telling me what he thought would rattle me. It didn't, because I don't fear those things.

 

I agree that this could be a case of Ssel projecting onto you those things he fears himself. That is a very human trait and I guess we all do it to an extent much of the time (not necessarily with fears)

 

However I don't think he acutually 'fears' these things in the way it has apparently been widely understood. I think Ssel was wanting to flush out those who think this way in a 'conspiracy' theory kind of way and those who dismiss such concerns as 'oh that's just conspiracy theory baloney'. I think he was wanting to challenge both these standpoints.

I doubt that was the case. I did not get that impression at all, but rather the opposite. If he was that highly trained skilled philosophical linguist (or whatever), and couldn't convey the ideas better, or even understand other people, it only adds to my suspicions.

 

And when it comes to Ssel reacting emotionally, it was wrong of him, since he demanded other people to argue without emotions, while he would be allowed to. He demanded no one "blaming" (as he called it) him, but he was "blaming" himself.

 

I'm not sure that Ssel was reacting emotionally - I think he gave that appearance in the same way he deliberately pressed buttons - because he was hoping that people would examine their reactions and learn from it. Whether this is a wise approach or not - I don't know!

He was surely reacting emotionally, in my opinion. At three times to my postings, and in a fast PM exchange we had the same day he left. He did not come through as a professional or a mature adult, but a child that had his feelings hurt. Maybe I'm too cold or hardened by time that I couldn't see through this? I don't know. Did he try to push my buttons? Maybe so, but the buttons that got me started was when members complained and even said they avoided topics he was participating in. All the rest of the issues were peripheral, but I feel I do have a responsibility to make sure long time members get first priority.

 

I do not doubt for one moment that you tried your best to keep him here.

Thanks. It was a tough spot, since the opinions on this site are extremely divided on this issue.

[Amethyst]

IMHO, he came across as very rude, arrogant, and condescending to everyone in general.

 

Also, if he really was a language genius as he claimed, he wouldn't have made the kinds of common grammatical mistakes that Han noticed (like mistaking sight for site). It's something that a spell checker wouldn't catch, but if someone was really as obsessed over words as Ssel seemed to be, he would have caught it. So it's a character inconsistency.

 

(As an aspiring writer, I'm learning how to catch those things in my own writing.)

 

Anyway, I'm glad we can come out and play now.

 

[Alice]

Ssel was never anything but clever, funny, flirty and generous in my conversations with him.

 

I'm interesting that you would see a level of inconsistency as a questionable character trait amethyst - I see it as 'human'.

 

I would doubt any character who seemed entirely 'consistent' to me - as shallow, robotic and boring.

 

I do not believe the claims that are being ascribed to Ssel - anymore than most of you. I think the claims were misunderstood.

 

But if he was preventing people from having free and open discourse - maybe his presence was a worthy sacrifice.

[Saviourmachine]

Ummmm....coherency please? Sorry Savior, but I have NO idea wtf you are saying here. Break it down into simple language for the plebes please.

What the hell. The first post of this thread was pretty interesting though.

[Amethyst]

I do not believe the claims that are being ascribed to Ssel - anymore than most of you. I think the claims were misunderstood.

 

Have you read any of the threads he participated in? I know what it's like to be bullied, and he definitely bullied me. I saw him bully others too.

[Alice]

I do not believe the claims that are being ascribed to Ssel - anymore than most of you. I think the claims were misunderstood.

 

Have you read any of the threads he participated in? I know what it's like to be bullied, and he definitely bullied me. I saw him bully others too.

 

I followed most of his threads quite closely except for the black box intelligence one. I exchanged a number of pms with him as well in an attempt to try and understand him.

 

When I refer to claims - I'm not refuting any claim that he bullied - more the 'I'm as old as the hills and a secret agent raised for brilliance' genre of claims!

 

I believe that a large percentage of the conflicts that happen between people do so because 'intent' is misunderstood or wrongly diagnosed.

 

Whilst I sure think that Ssel would have benefitted from a course in gentleness I happen to think his 'intent' was not to bully. That does not mean I am saying that he didn't engage in bullying behaviour nor that you weren't bullied. I don't like to see anyone be bullied and pulled him up on it. I'm sorry that such a situation arose. I think he managed to well and truly stuff up much of the message he was trying to convey - and that also is sad.

[Ouroboros]

He truly did stuff up the messages. Kind of over-compilcated the explanation. Things doesn't get better understood or become more true when fancy words and complicated explanations are used.

 

I learned many years ago, when I was teaching, that it's always better to step down a few notches when you select your words, and make it easier to understand, and then fewer misunderstandings occur. When more high-educated words are used, fewer people understand what you're saying, and you have many misunderstandings as a result. (Not saying that you have to talk like to a 5-year old. )

[Amethyst]

Whilst I sure think that Ssel would have benefitted from a course in gentleness I happen to think his 'intent' was not to bully. That does not mean I am saying that he didn't engage in bullying behaviour nor that you weren't bullied. I don't like to see anyone be bullied and pulled him up on it. I'm sorry that such a situation arose. I think he managed to well and truly stuff up much of the message he was trying to convey - and that also is sad.

 

It may not have been his original intent, but it was certainly how he came across, as though his opinion was the only right one and that anyone who disagreed was an idiot.

 

If I learned one thing from dealing with him, it is to just hit the iggy button early on when people come across as being rude, rather than to go through all the stress of dealing with them.

[Alice]

He truly did stuff up the messages. Kind of over-compilcated the explanation. Things doesn't get better understood or become more true when fancy words and complicated explanations are used.

 

I learned many years ago, when I was teaching, that it's always better to step down a few notches when you select your words, and make it easier to understand, and then fewer misunderstandings occur. When more high-educated words are used, fewer people understand what you're saying, and you have many misunderstandings as a result. (Not saying that you have to talk like to a 5-year old. )

 

Wondered when you would show up (teasing ...)

 

If you ever find that book you think he was quoting ... please let me know. I want to read it!

[NotBlinded]

He truly did stuff up the messages. Kind of over-compilcated the explanation. Things doesn't get better understood or become more true when fancy words and complicated explanations are used.

 

I learned many years ago, when I was teaching, that it's always better to step down a few notches when you select your words, and make it easier to understand, and then fewer misunderstandings occur. When more high-educated words are used, fewer people understand what you're saying, and you have many misunderstandings as a result. (Not saying that you have to talk like to a 5-year old. )

What if....this is what happened with the bible? It was stepped down a few notches in order to get the masses to understand some meaning (and of course power) and the result was mass misunderstandings. Just a thought!

 

Maybe that is why it should have remained with the Initiates???

[Ouroboros]

What I find really amuzing at the moment is that we talk about certain subjects in similar context as Ssel was doing. But without the Christian martini-lemon-twist to it.

 

We've talked about the universe as a conscious entity (which I think Ssel actually was going with his logics and his comparison between science and religion)

 

And now, the Bible being misunderstood, or even intentionally written as mythology, to explain the concept of a "higher" understanding of a "God entity" to the "lower" class of citizens in ancient time.

 

 

 

What if....this is what happened with the bible? It was stepped down a few notches in order to get the masses to understand some meaning (and of course power) and the result was mass misunderstandings. Just a thought!

 

Maybe that is why it should have remained with the Initiates???

Very possible. Personally I think the Gnostics influenced the Bible and the Gospels much more than is known, and their stories were not meant to be taken literally, but the uneducated took it that way.