Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
@Sedna -
I could provide you details of a real-life example of stalking but I doubt you would accept it. In the instance, I, along with about five others, were the objects of the stalking, and it has been alluded to in another thread. The problem is, that I doubt you would accept the stalker (trickster, as Nu Lang has said) as being a stalker, nor would you accept the events as stalking, since several others, including some of the five mentioned, prefer to refer to the stalker as a deranged egomaniac thereby providing themselves a convenient excuse for dismissing the event and their own vulnerabilities.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:
@Sedna -
I could provide you details of a real-life example of stalking but I doubt you would accept it. In the instance, I, along with about five others, were the objects of the stalking, and it has been alluded to in another thread. The problem is, that I doubt you would accept the stalker (trickster, as Nu Lang has said) as being a stalker, nor would you accept the events as stalking, since several others, including some of the five mentioned, prefer to refer to the stalker as a deranged egomaniac thereby providing themselves a convenient excuse for dismissing the event and their own vulnerabilities.
Try me.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Sedna wrote:Gonzo wrote:
@Sedna -
I could provide you details of a real-life example of stalking but I doubt you would accept it. In the instance, I, along with about five others, were the objects of the stalking, and it has been alluded to in another thread. The problem is, that I doubt you would accept the stalker (trickster, as Nu Lang has said) as being a stalker, nor would you accept the events as stalking, since several others, including some of the five mentioned, prefer to refer to the stalker as a deranged egomaniac thereby providing themselves a convenient excuse for dismissing the event and their own vulnerabilities.
Try me.
Done.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:
@Sedna -
I could provide you details of a real-life example of stalking but I doubt you would accept it. In the instance, I, along with about five others, were the objects of the stalking, and it has been alluded to in another thread. The problem is, that I doubt you would accept the stalker (trickster, as Nu Lang has said) as being a stalker, nor would you accept the events as stalking, since several others, including some of the five mentioned, prefer to refer to the stalker as a deranged egomaniac thereby providing themselves a convenient excuse for dismissing the event and their own vulnerabilities.
I think you have it backwards. If you recall, I saw through ForestWolf from the beginning and actually told you and others what was happening. You were being stalked by that deluded egomaniac (I stand by that statement), yet you refused to acknowledge what was right in front of you, and CLEARLY visible to anyone who *sees*. That you & others were taken in by the deception is neither here nor there, but be aware that it was your CHOICE to be taken in. Don't try to elevate the tyrant to hero status because of your own inability and/or unwillingness to *see*. History speaks for itself. You were duped. Now you are simply trying to say it was due to the brilliance of the tyrant, when the reality is that it was due to the inadequacy of the "mark".
Then again, I suppose you would also say that Manson & his followers "stalked" Sharon Tate & her companions "for their own good." That kind of "reason" isn't reason at all, just madness in disguise, the kind of "logic" used by the foreign installation to justify essentially anything. If you want to believe it, that's fine by me. But when you try to put it onto others by elevating a common egomaniac to hero status, you make it necessary to point out the fatal flaws in your "logic". It's not okay. It never was. It never will be. What FW did was not in alignment with "the right way to live" - largely because the people who became her "marks" did not sign on to have her as their teacher. They were largely just ordinary folks on a discussion forum, working under the assumption that others on the forum were there to discuss Castaneda, nagualism, etc. There were no don Juans and no Carlos's. Just people. The warrior games were hers and hers alone, based on an agenda to feed her own ago. Period. End of argument. History speaks for itself.
You like to say no one can con an honest man. How was it, then, that you yourself were so deeply conned even AFTER I told you what was happening, and spelled it out in black and white? Where does the logic in THAT lie?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Nu Lang wrote:
Castaneda stalked others as a trickster. The trickster has come up in discussion recently and its a perfect example of Julian and DJ and Carlos all of them employed deception with their apprentices to help them see that the fixed reality is in fact alterable. So this is what stalking others is and you can see that Carlos did it and documented it. Simply put, 'stalking helps to move the ap and helps one see'. Sounds like a mantra..lol.
We stalk ourselves yes, and others too. Then there is regular world stalking, that is done to move the ap to a position of control and keep one fixed. Warriors are not concerned with this and strive to abandon any ties to it.
Master stalking is when one fully knows the art and utilizes it to the fullest. You would not 'suspect' a master stalker likely, they have become so natural with it.
Just for clarification, my main point of argument in this thread & the other one is that the type of stalking employed by the "characters" in the Castaneda books occurred largely between naguals and their apprentices - meaning that there was a "relationship" between them which already had at least somewhat-clearly-defined parameters. When someone goes on the internet and starts stalking others, such as what occurred with ForestWolf, that relationship does not exist because 1) FW is certainly not a nagual by anyone's stretch of imagination; and 2) none of the folks who became her victims EVER agreed to be her apprentices. Put another way, there was no "honor" in the deal, and so to compare this kind of activity to that of a master stalker is, in my opinion, rather like elevating Hitler to the status of "a great teacher". Sure, we can learn from his mistakes, but there was no honor in his actions, no alignment with "the right way to live".
You make the comment that no one would suspect a master stalker. I agree completely. What Gonzo fails to mention in his praise of ForestWolf is that I did suspect her from day one, saw through the ruses and games, and actively made an effort to warn those whom she had targeted. Some listened. Most didn't. Point being: if she really WAS a master stalker, I never would have suspected it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
alien wrote:
I think you have it backwards. If you recall, I saw through ForestWolf from the beginning and actually told you and others what was happening. You were being stalked by that deluded egomaniac (I stand by that statement), yet you refused to acknowledge what was right in front of you, and CLEARLY visible to anyone who *sees*. That you & others were taken in by the deception is neither here nor there, but be aware that it was your CHOICE to be taken in. Don't try to elevate the tyrant to hero status because of your own inability and/or unwillingness to *see*. History speaks for itself. You were duped. Now you are simply trying to say it was due to the brilliance of the tyrant, when the reality is that it was due to the inadequacy of the "mark".
Then again, I suppose you would also say that Manson & his followers "stalked" Sharon Tate & her companions "for their own good." That kind of "reason" isn't reason at all, just madness in disguise, the kind of "logic" used by the foreign installation to justify essentially anything. If you want to believe it, that's fine by me. But when you try to put it onto others by elevating a common egomaniac to hero status, you make it necessary to point out the fatal flaws in your "logic". It's not okay. It never was. It never will be. What FW did was not in alignment with "the right way to live" - largely because the people who became her "marks" did not sign on to have her as their teacher. They were largely just ordinary folks on a discussion forum, working under the assumption that others on the forum were there to discuss Castaneda, nagualism, etc. There were no don Juans and no Carlos's. Just people. The warrior games were hers and hers alone, based on an agenda to feed her own ago. Period. End of argument. History speaks for itself.
SORCERY
You like to say no one can con an honest man. How was it, then, that you yourself were so deeply conned even AFTER I told you what was happening, and spelled it out in black and white? Where does the logic in THAT lie?
Where was the impeccability?
alien you make a few good points here and I want to point out that a lot of what 'stalkers' of others do, is very closely aligned with what 'stalkers' the illegal kind do, in manner, action and excuses, and is also similar to abusers. "To help you see." "For your own good" etc. All very psychologically manipulative sentences.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
How did FW's manipulations and games help people to see? Maybe they pointed to areas which needed to be stalked, but it was still up to each individual to do the self stalking requried. Similar as any Petty Tyrant, they point out or weaknesses, but we lone stalk them in ourselves.
How can you or I, make another person see? Only teachers with a lot of power can influence another person's seeing. Certainly we can use magic to help another person see in some instances, but that is not stalking.
We are getting confused with our terminologies and trying to stuff a chicken into a turkey suit!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Enchantra wrote:
Where was the impeccability?
alien you make a few good points here and I want to point out that a lot of what 'stalkers' of others do, is very closely aligned with what 'stalkers' the illegal kind do, in manner, action and excuses, and is also similar to abusers. "To help you see." "For your own good" etc. All very psychologically manipulative sentences.
Absolutely! There was no impeccability whatsoever - just a willy-nilly abuse of energy: her own, and that of others. And I totally agree that that kind of "stalking" is very much akin to the type of illegal stalking for which laws exist. When someone tells me, "It's for your own good," I always look at what THEY have to gain, or what they are attempting to take. In the case of most "stalkers" they are looking to boost their own ego and drain the energy of others. That isn't stalking - not by the Toltec definition.
I see that the question of what IS stalking keeps coming up, and Sedna asks for a real-life example. Reasonable request. Maybe one of the best examples from the Castaneda books was when Carlos took on the job of a waiter in an oscure restaurant for an extended period of time. By doing so, he was stalking something in himself - moving his assemblage point to a place of humbleness or service-to-others, trying on an "identity" that was not his normal persona.
In my own life, I am often in the position of having to go into a dangerous area of Los Angeles in association with our business. When doing so, I occasionally dress down and walk with a slight limp, even though there is nothing wrong with my leg. The "stalking" is that I then "blend in" with the local element, and am not seen as a threat. In reality, the "identity" of homeless-street-person is obviously not who I am, but putting myself in that position and assuming that mindset shifts the AP to such an extent that not only does the persona provide camouflage, it also enables me to *see* the world through entirely different eyes, learning a bit more about who I am, and who I'm not.
To me, stalking is about awareness - nothing more, nothing less. Ultimately, I believe that ALL stalking should be a matter of stalking oneself, for the simple reason that stalking others is generally just an exercise in self-importance unless some manner of apprentice/teacher relationship has been defined. People claiming to be warriors playing stalking games on the internet... that's just another role-playing game, often engaged in by those who are too cheap to buy into World of Warcraft. Heh.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
alien wrote:
Enchantra wrote:
Where was the impeccability?
alien you make a few good points here and I want to point out that a lot of what 'stalkers' of others do, is very closely aligned with what 'stalkers' the illegal kind do, in manner, action and excuses, and is also similar to abusers. "To help you see." "For your own good" etc. All very psychologically manipulative sentences.
In my own life, I am often in the position of having to go into a dangerous area of Los Angeles in association with our business. When doing so, I occasionally dress down and walk with a slight limp, even though there is nothing wrong with my leg. The "stalking" is that I then "blend in" with the local element, and am not seen as a threat. In reality, the "identity" of homeless-street-person is obviously not who I am, but putting myself in that position and assuming that mindset shifts the AP to such an extent that not only does the persona provide camouflage, it also enables me to *see* the world through entirely different eyes, learning a bit more about who I am, and who I'm not.
Good example!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Enchantra wrote:
How did FW's manipulations and games help people to see? Maybe they pointed to areas which needed to be stalked, but it was still up to each individual to do the self stalking requried. Similar as any Petty Tyrant, they point out or weaknesses, but we lone stalk them in ourselves.
How can you or I, make another person see? Only teachers with a lot of power can influence another person's seeing. Certainly we can use magic to help another person see in some instances, but that is not stalking.
We are getting confused with our terminologies and trying to stuff a chicken into a turkey suit!
I believe the only purpose FW could have served was for people to not get 'pulled in' to her drama. If one got pulled into her drama, then it might be construed as a weakness. Trying to reason with her ego was impossible too. Trying to get her to see the whole folly of her games was impossible.
And we shouldn't give her too much airtime here, maybe look for more examples on this thread.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
How many more posts in defense are going to be made? Here again, by the actions and words of the previous posts, direct exhibition of exactly what I was talking about. It seems to me, were one to encounter an egomaniac, trouble making, game playing troll, you would not respond to their prodding. Why did you all respond? You responded for the same reason I did...self-importance.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:
How many more posts in defense are going to be made? Here again, by the actions and words of the previous posts, direct exhibition of exactly what I was talking about. It seems to me, were one to encounter an egomaniac, trouble making, game playing troll, you would not respond to their prodding. Why did you all respond? You responded for the same reason I did...self-importance.Ok I will address this then I will post my post, saying no more discussion of forestwolf. I cannot answer for thosed who responded but they did this. They left their beloved forum, and created another one she couldn't enter. So many didn't just keep responding. They went away. When I chose to engage with forestwolf, it was for my own assimilation. She couldn't get a rise out of me in the way she wanted to, and in the end, I found her pick, showed her to be a phantom child, and she ran away.But not before the whole copyright thing with theun mares.
Okay like on the Beyond Stalking thread here goes:
Ok, this is my first day of moderating this section of the forum. I am pretty liberal when it comes to people having their say; however, we have two stalking threads and two of them are becoming the topic of forestwolf. I think we have addressed enough of her and the past. The past is the past, it should die, esp a past like that. So I'm asking that no more posts about forestwolf be done. We have assessed she was a troll, a con, she stalked people, some say it wasn't stalking it was just obsessive. Whatever the case enough is enough, lets drop discussing her and get back to disscussing stalking.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Anyone who joins the petty tyrant is defeated. To act in anger, without control and discipline, to have no forbearance, is to be defeated.
After warriors are defeated they either regroup themselves or they abandon the quest for knowledge and join the ranks of the petty tyrants for life.
~Fire From Within
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Enchantra wrote:
alien wrote:
I think you have it backwards. If you recall, I saw through ForestWolf from the beginning and actually told you and others what was happening. You were being stalked by that deluded egomaniac (I stand by that statement), yet you refused to acknowledge what was right in front of you, and CLEARLY visible to anyone who *sees*. That you & others were taken in by the deception is neither here nor there, but be aware that it was your CHOICE to be taken in. Don't try to elevate the tyrant to hero status because of your own inability and/or unwillingness to *see*. History speaks for itself. You were duped. Now you are simply trying to say it was due to the brilliance of the tyrant, when the reality is that it was due to the inadequacy of the "mark".
Then again, I suppose you would also say that Manson & his followers "stalked" Sharon Tate & her companions "for their own good." That kind of "reason" isn't reason at all, just madness in disguise, the kind of "logic" used by the foreign installation to justify essentially anything. If you want to believe it, that's fine by me. But when you try to put it onto others by elevating a common egomaniac to hero status, you make it necessary to point out the fatal flaws in your "logic". It's not okay. It never was. It never will be. What FW did was not in alignment with "the right way to live" - largely because the people who became her "marks" did not sign on to have her as their teacher. They were largely just ordinary folks on a discussion forum, working under the assumption that others on the forum were there to discuss Castaneda, nagualism, etc. There were no don Juans and no Carlos's. Just people. The warrior games were hers and hers alone, based on an agenda to feed her own ago. Period. End of argument. History speaks for itself.
SORCERY
You like to say no one can con an honest man. How was it, then, that you yourself were so deeply conned even AFTER I told you what was happening, and spelled it out in black and white? Where does the logic in THAT lie?
Where was the impeccability?
alien you make a few good points here and I want to point out that a lot of what 'stalkers' of others do, is very closely aligned with what 'stalkers' the illegal kind do, in manner, action and excuses, and is also similar to abusers. "To help you see." "For your own good" etc. All very psychologically manipulative sentences.
I so agree Enchantra. I have been trying, dedicatedly, for days to draw a line between these two and I just haven't been able to...I am relieved to find out that I am not the only one. Thank you.
I believe I am coming to an end on this one. I feel I have been giving this notion that stalking others could be a real technique with some use a fair shake, I have tried really hard to see it. Those who say that it is, however, have been less than forthcoming with examples to show that it is and all I can see from what has been shown and discussed so far is that stalking others is abusive at best. Even the person who claims this other person was a master it seems clear what she did didn't work and I think that is enough to conclude that it just doesn't work. Unless, of course, anyone knows of someone more masterful at it.
I want to thank everyone for their participation in helping me to understand this and make clear what was confusing me.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:
How many more posts in defense are going to be made? Here again, by the actions and words of the previous posts, direct exhibition of exactly what I was talking about. It seems to me, were one to encounter an egomaniac, trouble making, game playing troll, you would not respond to their prodding. Why did you all respond? You responded for the same reason I did...self-importance.
Gonzo, I wish you would illuminate more on this. However, I guess, without talking about that person...instead please tell me about what you got out of it. As you said in another post you are the only one that saw what happened as masterful, I assume you are saying this because you got something out of the exchange...I'd like to know what you got out of it. I really hope that you can shed some light on this.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Sedna wrote:
Gonzo wrote:
How many more posts in defense are going to be made? Here again, by the actions and words of the previous posts, direct exhibition of exactly what I was talking about. It seems to me, were one to encounter an egomaniac, trouble making, game playing troll, you would not respond to their prodding. Why did you all respond? You responded for the same reason I did...self-importance.
Gonzo, I wish you would illuminate more on this. However, I guess, without talking about that person...instead please tell me about what you got out of it. As you said in another post you are the only one that saw what happened as masterful, I assume you are saying this because you got something out of the exchange...I'd like to know what you got out of it. I really hope that you can shed some light on this.
I allow for Gonzo to answer this post and say what he got out of it. But I do warn to be careful mentioning FW, or the post will be deleted.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
datura8 wrote:
Sedna wrote:
Gonzo wrote:
How many more posts in defense are going to be made? Here again, by the actions and words of the previous posts, direct exhibition of exactly what I was talking about. It seems to me, were one to encounter an egomaniac, trouble making, game playing troll, you would not respond to their prodding. Why did you all respond? You responded for the same reason I did...self-importance.
Gonzo, I wish you would illuminate more on this. However, I guess, without talking about that person...instead please tell me about what you got out of it. As you said in another post you are the only one that saw what happened as masterful, I assume you are saying this because you got something out of the exchange...I'd like to know what you got out of it. I really hope that you can shed some light on this.
I allow for Gonzo to answer this post and say what he got out of it. But I do warn to be careful mentioning FW, or the post will be deleted.
Oh please not until I read it. So far only Gonzo and Enchantra have been able to talk about this with any lick of clarity. Also it is helpful that they are both of opposing minds on the subject.
I get keeping forums to the point, but if I am a noob and I can't get wth you are talking about with stalking then the forum isn't really to the point is it? If it is just a forum for friends to talk then what does it matter what they talk about? Just saying.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
alien wrote:You make the comment that no one would suspect a master stalker. I agree completely. What Gonzo fails to mention in his praise of ForestWolf is that I did suspect her from day one, saw through the ruses and games, and actively made an effort to warn those whom she had targeted. Some listened. Most didn't. Point being: if she really WAS a master stalker, I never would have suspected it.
Thats a good point Alien, I agree. It appears FW was likely just a trickster, who perhaps got her kicks off of tricking people. I say this but truly I don't know the person. But if you spotted her, thats a good indication she was not so integral and that lack of integrity is easy to see, because lack of integrity bears the signature of the foreign mind which is calculating and self-serving, so one can notice it. That being said, those who were stalked likely learned a bit about themselves (folly), as is the case when we are duped in any situation, such as one person talked about being conned when on vacation...its a learning experience. But from the sounds of it FW was not one to be 'trusted' if you know what I mean. That she may not have had anyone's best interests at heart when doing what she did. Ok, I think she is a mute subject now so I'll stop talking about her, lol. I came into this discussion late and just wanted to add my final thoughts on her as she appears to be based on everyone's comments here.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Consider what your post above reveals about you Gonzo.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Nu Lang wrote:Consider what your post above reveals about you Gonzo.
I have, and I'm content with it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"The real challenge for those sorcerer seers," don Juan went on, "was finding a system of behavior that was neither petty nor capricious, but that combined the morality and the sense of beauty which differentiates sorcerer seers from plain witches."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Nu Lang wrote:"The real challenge for those sorcerer seers," don Juan went on, "was finding a system of behavior that was neither petty nor capricious, but that combined the morality and the sense of beauty which differentiates sorcerer seers from plain witches."
This is a very important statement, and I think kind of goes back to what I was saying about impeccability.
Good find Nu Lang!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Yeah En, integrity/impeccability is so important I agree!
I'll give an example...as this came to mind...
Would 'you' (general you) want to go to a competent dentist who can diagnose you by the book and methodically preform procedure of cure, or would you want to go to a competent dentist who can diagnose you with his heart, which means he not only knows the book of dentistry but can act outside of it and connect to you, your spirit, your inner well-being. This is the difference. Then your whole being is enhanced. They call this bedside manner. Good doctors and naguals I guess are very similar in this regard. One of the naguals tasks is to heal. And all of us, we can be healers. Or we can be harmers, or, we can be methodical performers of knowledge but without heart, which is not the same as a harmer, one seeking harm, but rather one who just remains cool and can go either way...to heal or harm at whim...a regular witch/warlock.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
What remains missing is real life examples. I get that when you are unsure you look to CC's words, but what seems missing is any application of those words to your actual life. I am beginning to wonder if anyone here actually practices any of this stuff or if it is mental practice alone?
|
