I suppose the issue is that if the benefit you have to offer is at all significant, it's blameless to attempt to share the benefit with as many as possible. Trying hard to not become a public figure in that context becomes something at odds with the benefit you have to offer. Also, simply being a human being means the approval feels good and can prove addicting.

I'm having this manifest mildly on my website, which I created so I have a way to vent ideas that are interesting to me but boring to almost everyone else I know in meat form. I'm getting more visitors and replies to my posts then ever before - and the replies are almost uniformly grateful, attributing all kinds of virtues to me I have difficulty owning.

And here's the irony. It doesn't matter the extent I stand in not knowing and cultivate a critical mind - whatever I do, that's what my readers are manifesting a cult of personality around, assuming they're not just massaging my ego for backlink goodness.

If it wasn't for taking on points of view critical to my own (I have to seek them out online manually) I'd be far less productive writing posts. And yet it's this material that yields the most visits and garners the most bullshitty praise.

I'm not in danger of falling into a Guru trip. But the reason is entirely negative, a function of an arrogant neurotic self loathing I really must relinquish to be emotionally healthier.

Landmark Education I suppose is an example of narrowly escaping the guru trap. Clearly the guru trip appealed to Erdhardt's personal ego, but he did manifest a group of people to manage the organization and retire from it once it became clear the cult of personality inhibited the value of their work

My personal challenge on my spiritual path is to allow myself to trust someone else to guide me. Up till now I've only trusted myself and the authors that inspire me (Robert Anton Wilson, DT Suzuki, Thich Nhat Hahn, Anton Szandor LaVey, Phil Hine).

But in my experience I have been exposed to Landmark Education and have seen first hand how a cult of personality develops (in this case around Werner Erdhardt). All it takes is being legitimately helpful in even a small way. If you can be helpful, can share a valuable insight - and you can share the insight with more than one person. The people you help can and will attribute to you a 'guru' status, if you seek it or not.

And think about being this Guru for a moment. You are bombarded with people validating you and making claims for you. Brainwashing works both ways - it's almost impossible to not believe the bullshit you're hearing if the message is repeated again and again and again ad-nauseaum.

It's not that Tony Robbins has no compassion for the person his program fails, who becomes bankrupt. It's that Tony Robbins has been brainwashed into believing his program can never fail - it must be the poor guy didn't follow the program! How could it be any other way - you're being bombarded with approval constantly!

And whatever the guru does, the approval never stops! Out of desperation the Guru will suggest things he KNOWS are false.... the approval doesn't stop.

I am personally very interested in an evil that isn't banal and stupid. But I've not found one.

What is missing though is the idea that the 'guru' is just another person like you and I - but a person that has a greater problem than you or I : that damned guru status is a TRAP. Gurus are victims of their followers!

Is it necessary to call me an idiot because you know the facts are at odds with your assertions?

Classically I respect argument and disagreement, but in a context where the facts can be agreed upon because they are facts.

The healthcare bill makes it mandatory to buy health private insurance by every adult American citizen, it's hard to understand how this overwhelming windfall can hurt the insurance companies. The reasoning is that the great numbers of healthy people buying insurance will allow sick people to have the comprehensive and expensive coverage they require to live paid by insurance companies - that will make more profit anyway, more than ever before in history. So I can't see the downside for Private Insurance companies, perhaps you can enlighten me?

President Eisenhower was a Republican, yes? How about President Nixon, was he a Republican? Because the top tax rate under Eisenhower was 90% and the top tax rate under Nixon was 70%. Under those presidents we enjoyed a large and prosperous middle class. A progressive analysis suggests that wealthy people to stay out of those highest tax brackets and take home more money - they would have their businesses hire more people and pay them more money so their profit statement would land them in a more modest tax rate.

Please argue against that, well. Thank you.

Well, I don't pray regularly for anyone. I would like to post some comments and questions though, to those that dislike this President so much.

First of all, the words that come out of Obama's mouth have nothing to do with his actions. He says he's for Gay rights, against war, against the Patriot Act and for single payer healthcare (medicare for all would be one way) - and those positions would be left wing positions. But Obama lied, he's against Gay marriage and his office has legally argued against civil rights for gay people, Obama signed the continuation of the Patriot Act (which I personally consider treasonous, but that would make Bush a traitor too), His administration is responsible for hundreds of thousands of Afghani citizen deaths, and Obama cut a deal such that single payer health care would never even be discussed.

Obama's actions are, in fact, right wing actions many Republican president would have taken, why is there no agreement with Obama's conservative actions from conservatives? I really am curious.

The healthcare bill is a bad one, but for just one reason. There is no control placed on what insurance companies can charge. Any public option would set a standard private insurers would be forced to match and for prices to be low enough no everyone chooses the public option instead.

It does constitute a meditative practice, but the awareness is focused on the religious abstraction, making it very distinct from the idea of being present to what is for no reason other than it is what it is.

And my intense debate rank is so piss poor 'cause I have the balls to go on conservative echo chamber websites and preach to the non converted.

I don't distinguish 'bad' being present from 'good' being present. Either you are present or you are not. Psychosis is simply coloring, I believe extreme narcissism doesn't allow being present in the first place (if you're focused only on the self, it's at the expense of being aware of what is that is broader than that, no?).

From what you wrote of Steve Pavlina, the question I have is this: Is the solipsism a natural fit BECAUSE of Steve's success? Meaning, we live in a world with an eviscerated middle class, middle class now are people we counted as rich just 5 years ago. And that's pretty lonely. Is it so lonely you might as well be the only person in your subjective world? That's a frightening thought, far more interesting to me.

If you read the pamphlet, you know I advise a focus on being content in the here and now irregardless of the circumstances. It's a Chaos magic principle that conscious attachment to the result prevents manifestation of the result.

The irony of genuinely successful wealth magic is that technically what wealth means literally is "to be free from want" - and honestly that is not something money will ever deliver. What delivers freedom from want is a mind space that isn't attached to wealth - which is how I theorize the best magicians are rarely of the fortune 500.

Generally as a magician I think it's cool wherever your head space is at. Some people need to have the sports car to realize it doesn't make them cool or sexy like James Bond - what they REALLY wanted from the beginning.

But personally I am after wealth in the most course sense of the word, not because I have a karmic hang up with wealth or lust after status - but because I have many ideas that are only possible to explore with resources of wealth : Is it possible to create self sustaining living spaces/businesses as a means to end homelessness and dent unemployment? Can I make a cartoon (not a comic book, media consumers can no longer read even with pictures) popular with children that contains dimensions spirituality, politics and sexuality? Can I 'take out' Fox news with a news broadcast that actually is very comprehensive, and is delivered by young guys and girls in speedos and bikinis? Can I prove a limited cooperative business model has an unfair competitive advantage versus Corporations that must answer stockholders that don't personally work in the business? I need wealth in the most course sense of the word to play such games.

I do despair that real people with immense wealth have no interest in such games. So I have no shame in trying, seeing if it is possible to get rich!

My own transition from being closeted to being openly gay involved a year long existential crisis (is my masculinity counterfeit and my true self a nellie queen?) - I resolved the issue by deciding I simply do not exist at all and all that I am is the stuff of arbitrary conditioning and decisions - so I made some new decisions about myself that I actually liked and decided to live from there.

So the issue is akin to the idea that I have to empty my cup to accept new information and I'm resisting because I get a lot of value from that which is in my cup at the moment.

Well, I know enough about genuine conversational hypnosis to understand that if it is power/control based it's something else. But given I have a sense of what conversational hypnosis is, I find the fear based marketing approach really funny. And as a clickbank goody it has a solid money back guarantee for 2 months, I'm not pretending to buy the thing myself.

I am in an inquiry relating to make money online, I wonder if it is only the nastiest marketing that delivers results. Said course is, after all, the best selling clickbank product on the subject.

I mean I am working on a Chaos magic tutorial in the form of a comic that maybe could also be confused for a Christian comic (I am a slave to what I find funny) - but I don't see people paying me money for it.

The concept of 'being present' as a spiritual practice is absent in western thought, and I interpreted the idea as being dismissed as a negative. If you care to suggest some English translations you believe good quality, I may read them.

You distinguished the idea of being present to the now as a negative, which is a key practice of Rinzae Zen. And I took some mild offense to the idea that Law of Attraction cannot be of use. Though admittedly I've had to rework LOA a great deal and personalize it some to have it be something I'm happy with (the results are in a brief ebook avaialble for free on my site, [url removed].