Oprah is leading the mass awakening

reply to post by 23Eulogy23

-Just dont drink the Koolaide
-Dont bother with the $5.00 because the intergalatic burger stand was closed for a verulant form of space roach,
-Dont worry about the gym bag because where ever you are going it will be a short trip.
-Always bring a CD player with a copy of Slim Whitman's favorite hits in case you need an exit plan,,,,
-And last of all the Planet Ork was distroyed 20 years ago to make way for a new galatic througouh fare. And Nanu Nanu doesnt mean "take me to your leader" in any alien language,,,

Nice philosophy too bad the Buddahist beat her to it,,, Nam ist tay!

reply to post by Alxandro




I've had it.

Why is it so nessecary for people to bring their own ACCUSATIONS into a discussion of ideas and opinions?

What was that saying - "It's not big, and it's not clever"?

Every single day i see another unfounded and bias accusation against some random person in our society.

It really does just seem as if there is some sort of uncontrollable jealousy issue here.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant


Every single day i see another unfounded and bias accusation against some random person in our society.

Well, that's the result of the anonymity of the interweb. You are free to be as clever or as corny as you can with no real repercussions.

And yes there is a huge jealously component to much criticism. I plead guilty.

back on topic...
Oprah has as much right to exercise the free enterprise system this country affords in any manner she see fit, even if it is slightly goofy in my opinion. Bless her heart!

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by seawolf197
Is it possible to actually look into something before trashing it?

Seawolf.... Didn't you read the link provided?
It HAS been looked into. READ THIS THREAD

It exposes the truth behind the origins of her 'course in miracles'.
Oprah is a narcassist. She's spiritually bankrupt. She's pushing new age junk on the same people who think Obama is the messiah.

I did read the link provided. (The entire thread) And I watched the little video posted by the OP of that thread. In fact, that is how I am certain that it "hasnt been looked into."

Even the most casual glance at the actual online class, or any of the advertising about it if one was afraid of being ex-communicated from some religious group for actually watching a class, would make it quite clear that "A Course in Miracles" is NOT the subject of said online class. Nor is the author of said "Course in Miracles" or her purported descent into some "hellish" state relevant to the online class in any way.

Even if one was using the logic:

"A New Earth" is "new age" spirituality, and "A Course in Miracles" was "new age" spirituality, and the woman who authored it is purported to have have a long period of spiritual regret, doubt, and depression at the end of her life, THEREFORE, "new age" spirituality leaves one open to experiencing this sort of "dark night of the soul" and should be avoided.

In order for this logic to be meaningful, would have to completely overlook the fact that mainstream religions (notably Christianity) also have famous figures who undergo this "Dark night of the soul" and experience spiritual doubt, turmoil, pain, and feelings of having been abandoned by God. Famously, one of them is a saint, St John of the Cross, and the most recent famous example is Mother Theresa, who is nominated for sainthood. Wikipedia has a link about the phenomenon and some of its famous experiencers here;

en.wikipedia.org...

As for Oprah being a narcissist or egotisical, she certainly does seem to have an above average amount of self confidence, ego, and belief that she can make a difference and is worth listening to. However, that same statement can be made about virtually any human being who achieves fame or some position of power. Including televangelists, politicians, authors, CEO's, scientists, etc. People who do not have a strong ego tend not to "put themselves out there" and rarely attract the notice of the rest of us.

I am not a "fan" of her, or anyone. I like some things some people do, and I dislike or an ambivalent about other things they do, Oprah included. I could care less, personally, about makeovers, or product giveaways. I rarely watch her show, but I certainly will if the topic interests me. That said, I admire her as a human being, however, for trying to use the power she has attained and the venue she has access to, (the media) to enact positive change in peoples lives. Whether or not she always meets my standards is irrelevant to me. None of us live up to our own standards of excellence 100% of the time, myself included. I admire anyone sincerely trying to use their resources and intelligence to enable others to be their best, and I feel she does sincerely try to do that, whether she always succeeds or not.

Originally posted by whaaa

Well, that's the result of the anonymity of the interweb.

Bullcrap.

I'd say it's a result of little kidiots trying to appear big and clever, what say you?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
"As for Oprah being a narcissist or egotisical, she certainly does seem to have an above average amount of self confidence, ego, and belief that she can make a difference and is worth listening to.".

Forgive me for asking, but what is the difference between a celebrity who thinks this, and an anonymous poster on the internet?

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Every single day i see another unfounded and biased accusation against some random person in our society.

Good one. A laugh-out-loud-and-deny-ignorance statement, imo.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
"As for Oprah being a narcissist or egotisical, she certainly does seem to have an above average amount of self confidence, ego, and belief that she can make a difference and is worth listening to.".

Forgive me for asking, but what is the difference between a celebrity who thinks this, and an anonymous poster on the internet?

No need to ask for forgiveness, it is a completely fair question. In answer to that question I would say there is absolutely no difference, aside from the fact that a celebrity has been more successful in convincing the general public that their opinions, etc., matter.

My point was not that she was flawed for having an ego. It was only to point out that virtually anyone famous or known does, and that singling her out for it is rather unfair.

You bring up a wonderful point, that being that all of us here expressing our opinions also have egos. Or we wouldnt be doing it.

Seems like when ratings might be taking a bit of a dive, Oprah always comes up with something. Ratings low? Admit to being a coke addict. Admit to having been sexually abused, etc.

I thought the only thing she did was lead people to the fridge.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by jerico65]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

You bring up a wonderful point, that being that all of us here expressing our opinions also have egos.

Or we wouldnt be doing it.

Well, that would be your opinion, wouldn't it?

I was infact pointing out that because of the relative success of celebrities, those with uncontrollable egos whom are not so successful will most likely be driven to accuse any relatively successful person of being [insert randomised accusation here] purely because they feel like it.

You don't go around accusing people of things, purely because you feel like it.

Such activity undermines the very fabric of our society - and i'm talking about the Good bits of society here.

p.s; i fail to see how "A single pebble can cause a landslide" and "I wonder how many people will take this seriously" can be an ego-centralised viewpoint, btw.

It might be difficult to understand how a person can have an opinion that isn't based on their own personal motivations on the matter if you fail to understand why people are driven to do things, like for example; Oprah attempting to bring wisdom and knowledge to the masses.

Even if she's doing it purely for popularity's sake, it's a brave move - one that hasn't been attempted for decades perhaps.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Originally posted by whaaa

Well, that's the result of the anonymity of the interweb.

Bullcrap.

I'd say it's a result of little kidiots trying to appear big and clever, what say you?

Well yeah, that too

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I agree with you and because of the elections this year I'll never watch her show again.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Well, that would be your opinion, wouldn't it?

I was infact pointing out that because of the relative success of celebrities, those with uncontrollable egos whom are not so successful will most likely be driven to accuse any relatively successful person of being [insert randomised accusation here] purely because they feel like it.

You don't go around accusing people of things, purely because you feel like it.

I also think you should consider whether or not your anger at some of the comments has become generalized. I have no quarrel with you. I am not bashing Oprah at all. None of my comments about her ego in any way excluded the fact that I also have an ego, as do you, as does everyone. I am wholly unclear as to why you feel anything I have said is attacking you or your position, I personally do not see any significant difference.

If it is that I acknowledge that Oprah has a ego, and that hers may be above average, hence her willingness to pursue the spotlight in the first place, well, I cant apologize for that. Everyone of us has an ego. Some more, some less, and some also have the self confidence to acknowledge their ego drives and use them as a springboard to fame and acclaim. Others dont, as you point out, and become envious and bitter and make nasty comments about those who do succeed in gratifying their desire for success. Nietzsche has written extensively on the danger of suppressing a natural desire to be ones best, and the mean little ways it manifests. If this is an issue that interests you, it is a good read. For a philosopher, Nietzsche is relatively painless to read. (A "Geneaology of Morality" is the book in question, should you care to read it) I personally have no quarrel with the idea of having an ego, big, small or average. I am not apologizing for or denying my own, nor bashing Oprah for hers.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


If i was angry, i wouldn't have even bothered to reply.

Anger does no one any good, except for when you're expressing immense displeasure over being exposed to something - like for example; baseless accusations.

I acknowledge that everyone does indeed have an Ego, as after all i tend to value the psychological method of Id, Ego and Super-Ego quite highly.

The point i'm trying to make is that in this particular instance, i believe it might be worth overlooking the possibilities of any character flaws in Oprah, because she is after all pursuing a worthy endeavour.

Something which is apparently quite hard for more than a few people to recognise.

one more thing; there is a difference between using your Ego as a launchpad for success, and being self-driven towards helping people.

Perhaps she feels that she has to maintain her social standing in order to continue helping people, I DON'T KNOW, AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE.

If someone was to come in and say, for example "I know Oprah personally, and she is a such and such" i might be inclined to watch what happens, but i sincerely doubt that is going to happen.

I am struggling to understand why people fail to acknowledge that "the only person who can truly know you, is you", and apply that to other people.

Why is it so nessecary for us to analyse each other, hunting down one another's personality traits and flaws in some kind of grand game designed to amuse us?

When you find the answer to that question, then you will have discovered the main method of which we are controlled.

The old "Judge people not by what they say, but by their actions" routine.

Ah...maybe not the way in which you put it.

She is doing a thing weekly with Eckhart Tolle - live web class.

You can see that its still a concept in the mind for her now...hey we have to start from somewhere...but she is not leading, per say, the awakening by example...more as a tool which seems to be somewhat open, perhaps, in which the message of 'enlightenment' can get through.

I would say Eckhart is leading the way by example...the heck I no Im not.
Its all head knowledge for me, Im still to wrapped up in a 'false identity'...so we can make enlightenment or awakening into a game too.

Peace

dalen

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
The point i'm trying to make is that in this particular instance, i believe it might be worth overlooking the possibilities of any character flaws in Oprah, because she is after all pursuing a worthy endeavour.

I dont know when you joined the thread, or how much you have read, but nothing I have posted in this thread in any way has indicated that I felt that this particular online class was not a worthy endeavor.

Every one of my posts has been supportive of what she is attempting to do with this project. I also have made numerous arguments that one should not let ones personal feelings about Oprah cause them not to examine the "worthy endeavor." I have argued it should be examined and either accepted or rejected on its own merits or lack thereof.

You seem to be assuming that I consider having a big ego a "character flaw." I personally do not. That is, in fact, the point I was attempting to make in the post that seems to have upset you. I was attempting to say that the fact that Oprah may have a bigger than average ego is not sufficient grounds to condemn her. I was attempting to point out that the same thing could be said of ANYONE in any field who attains some sort of acclaim or fame. That having a large ego seems to be part of the package required for putting oneself out there, and risking ridicule and failure to make some impact upon the world. I dont think that is a negative thing at all, in itself. Some people want to use their large egos to make a negative impact, Hitler say, but the large ego alone is not the problem in that situation. It would have been far better for all had he used that large ego to pursue his first career choice, architecture, and impacted the world by leaving buildings, rather than genocide, as his legacy.

You also asked how some of the comments here would lead me to feel the poster is "egocentric." I did not say the word "egocentric," which has a negative connotation which I did not imply, nor do I intend. Anyone who posts here has some ego. Obviously so. Not because of what we say, specifically, but because we assume that anything we have to say is worth sharing with others.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Those who are laughing at the OP dont have a clue how mass-consciousness and accumulative tipping-points work. Not a clue.

Then next time I suggest you don't talk like you have some sort of MOD like wisdom then and talk like your giving an opinion. Your post sounded like your trying to tell everybody their wrong and your right; and everyone who is oblivious to Oprah's "movement" as you called it (which you are yet to get me any statistical data) are clueless. So please next time don't post like your a know it all if you have no information.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Lokey13]