Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek
I totally agree with what you said, you said it perfectly. Debating and sharing opinions is very healthy.
This whole thread is an argument about something that isn't at all relevant to the topic. David Wilcocks ego. Its creating unnecessary negative energy and division. There is not much we can gain from proving that David does or does not have an ego.
|
I've said this in this thread already, but I'll try and re-phrase it: the status of his ego
is relevant. If David were a mathematician, and his usefulness to me was in supplying me with new eye-opening equations I'd never considered before, I wouldn't give a rats about his ego - I'd just take his equation, and test it - the output would stand on self evidence.
However, David is in the business of fuzzy evidence; he relays insider testimony from people who are anonymous to us, and interprets his own dreams on our behalf. These aren't hard bits of data that you or I can make estimates about directly, they come through David, and therefore we have to understand David himself to properly contextualize his testimony. I need to counter balance his biases to level out the info. If I think he has a tendency to subconsciously move himself toward the centre of scenarios he is recounting, then I need to move him slightly further away from the centre to make a proper estimate about what he's relaying. Just like if you play poker against someone who bluffs a lot, you should be a lot less worried about what hand they might have when they make a bet than if they were someone who bet only very occasionally. It's about adjusting to someone's tendencies. It's something I need to do to properly weight his ideas.
So tell me you think he isn't egotisitical (which I think is a pretty far out opinion to have), but don't tell me it isn't relevant.
I don't think it spreads negative energy to discuss a facet of someone's character, even if that facet is one that is undesirable to most people, as long as it's done maturely. I mean, if we were discussing someone who was well above average weight, and it was relevant, would we not be able to mention it in an adult fashion, without it seeming as though we were verbally assailing the person? I don't see how my discussing his ego from an objective point of view spreads "negative energy".
Again, I'm not making a value judgement on him. I have an ego probably about the same size as David's. I've decided it's something I don't like all that much in my self, and I'm probably going to spend the rest of this life reducing it. If David is happy with the state of his ego, good for him, I have no quarrel, but I will notice it, and discuss it, if it seems relevant, and I think it seems relevant.