This is not directed particularly at this thread, as I think you guys are doing pretty good at keeping it polite. Just some thoughts I wanted to read into the record and perhaps get feedback on.

I am asking myself if Tom has ever accused someone directly of being high entropy or expressed presumption regarding their motives, to their face.

Its one thing to discuss ego and fear and entropy in principle, and perhaps apply the finger of judgement against ourselves in the mirror, but its a totally different thing to accuse someone of these things "in theatre".

An academic discussion of principles is one thing, but to make an assertion regarding the entropy or intention of someone that you are talking to on the forum, is actually a direct violation of Tom's guidance.

He or she who accuses another of being high entropy, is demonstrating high entropy. He or she who confesses high entropy, is demonstrating low entropy.

If you are interacting with someone on a point and they accuse the quality of your intention, that is perhaps the point to gently break off discussion, as they are not capable of progressing in a spirit of good will, and you can only be dragged down to their level.

AND, if someone accuses you of being high entropy or acting out of ego, I would assert the only correct response is to say "you don't know the half of it".

I was once interacting with a Rabbi online as part of my investigation into converting to Judaism, and one thing that interests me are the extreme expressions of a model. Like, who are the best and worst historical examples. So I asked him, "who was the worst Rabbi that ever lived".

I was stunned by his response.

He said, quoting directly "that would be myself", referring to himself.

We are not getting at the meaning and substance of the spiritual message of MBT until we discard the impulse to use MBT as simply another tool of fear and ego.

All argumentation of course should presume or state "according to my possibly limited understanding". As soon as one player decends to the level of personal hyperbole, the interaction has become unprofitable and should probably be terminated in order to provide feedback to the perpetrator, unless you have the self control to let it go and cheerfully stick to the substantive content.

I had this one boss, a guy married to his job and pushing 40 years experience in pretty much the same spot, a very technical job in National Accounts where GDP is calculated, and he would always preface his advice with "based on my limited experience with this".; - )

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Randy - you are calling me out and I take your point. I was trying to discuss ego in relation to medium to high entropy behavior and crediting pretty much all of us on the forum with being at that level. If someone is trying to say they are low entropy then I have to say I am making a contrary assumption based upon what they have written. I am not trying to call MagicJack out on his entropy level but rather trying to say that we are all in the same boat. Having ego resulting in fear and belief is something we are all working on. But you have to recognize it before you start to address it. Misunderstanding the meaning of what Tom has written and said has to be corrected.

Saying that it is a fact that you will get results by meditating with NO ego, fear, or beliefs says a lot in itself. I have to disagree with this statement. Tom may be able to do that (but I don't think he even meditates anymore) but the same can not be said by any of us.

And by the way I am not Tom - nor at his entropy level. I try to learn and post better as I go along. I don't think I can exactly be held to his standard. But I do take your point.

Jack,

first of all one should understand oneself (I'd rather say, become aware of oneself, one's feeling and emotions and their causes. This is not a mental exercise or process and intellect has nothing to do with it, but this is a result of one's internal personal growth), and the rest comes almost with no effort, almost by itself.

Information is data. One's QoC and awareness are the source of understanding and provide ability to be aware of feelings and emotions of others. Only when one can relate properly to data, this data will automatically create one's adequate response. Intellect helps with a logic, but not with awareness of what others feel and think.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

I recently read Tom's interview here for the second time, though NOT the gazillion replies. It's a long read, but it impressed me so much the first time that I was impelled to spend a considerable amount of time reading it again.

What impressed me so? As far as I know Tom has no special training in gender studies or psychology, yet I feel that he has more wisdom in the area of human psychology than most "experts" in the field. I read "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus", by John Gray (Grey?) when it came out about 20 years ago, and I thought it was insightful and added much to our understanding of gender differences. But Tom's insights go far beyond those of J.G., who, if I recall correctly was a relationship/marriage counselor (I don't recall his specific training or credentials). I have nothing to add to this old conversation here, but sometimes Tom's wisdom, his innate knowledge into human psychology is just amazing to me. Everything he says in the interview rings true, but how does he have all this wisdom? How does he know all this stuff about how women feel? Tom should be teaching courses in these areas; he should be the one training the pschologists, counselors, and social workers!

As a side note, I've often entertained myself by thinking how different the world would be if women were in all positions of authority throughout the world. Heads of state; corporate CEO's; military leaders; religious leaders (think-the pope); police chiefs. ALL positions. Would the Indian Prime Minister simply arrange a lovely pot-luck brunch for Pakistani leaders and talk things out over finger sandwiches and pictures of their kids? Would political borders even matter? Would the 1% as we know it exist, or would we have a level economic playing field? What about the military? Terrorist organizations? Street gangs and organized crime? Government corruption? Sex slaves and pornography? Would these things even exist? I try to imagine what it would mean for education and access to health care; crime rates and the prison system; child abuse and domestic violence? Would we have a gentler, more caring and evolved world or would females over time exhibit the same aggressive tendencies as men, despite the lack of testosterone? How would the behavior of men change? How would we raise our children in this society? All interesting things to wonder about.

Just my 2-cents worth for the day. Is Tom still planning the book?

Ann

_________________
"What is the meaning of Paradise? To know yourself to be yourself yet one with The Whole. That is Paradise."- Edgar Cayce

Tom works his writing in around his travel and presentation preparations and his replying to emails requesting help and explanations.

Remember that we as IUOCs are not inherently either male or female, having incarnated as both and that with long term existence, we tend to balance out between these two ways of incarnation and further that Tom has access to information sources that none of the rest of us have.

Ted

A fascinating idea. I would hazard a guess that, given an assumption that men and women are not massively different in their inherent levels of entropy, a world lead by women, although very different, would probably have its own problems and imbalances. I guess a balance of men and women leaders would be ideal but maybe a time of majority female rule would be beneficial, even essential, before such a balanced state could exist.

Happy International Women's Day, by the way :-)

_________________
Subjective and complex content may be difficult for the sender to code and for the receiver to decode without a great deal of error. Mistaking the information received for the information intended is the cause of much misunderstanding.