I think some of these critiques are valid... but I also think there are many reasons to contradict oneself, including changing one's mind, which we all do (hopefully :) I change my mind about things all the time based on the new information or knowledge or experience or feelings etc.. I think it's normal for a human being to evolve one's…
I think some of these critiques are valid... but I also think there are many reasons to contradict oneself, including changing one's mind, which we all do (hopefully :) I change my mind about things all the time based on the new information or knowledge or experience or feelings etc.. I think it's normal for a human being to evolve one's views and opinions. I can only speak for myself but the way I approach it, I focus on the useful or pleasant (or both) things that I can do, and don't pay much attention to people's ideas, or the famous potential 5D chess unless I genuinely understand the 5D chess in a particular area, based on knowledge or years of research, etc.. When it comes to the people I don't personally know, I usually pay attention to intangible things, like sincerity and general intellectual integrity and whether a person does things from love. If that's there, then I take the person seriously, regardless of whether I agree in a particular topic. So far, Dr. Malone impressed me as sincere and passionate, and I like him. He is not without contradictions, and I don't agree with everything that ever came out of his mouth, but I think that contradictions come from complexity. And as far as controlled opposition, I think it is literally impossible to know in most cases. At this point everybody has called everybody controlled opposition, and the phrase itself became meaningless. :))
And I am so glad we can discuss it like normal human beings, with figuring things out as we go! Thank you for that.
I think some of these critiques are valid... but I also think there are many reasons to contradict oneself, including changing one's mind, which we all do (hopefully :) I change my mind about things all the time based on the new information or knowledge or experience or feelings etc.. I think it's normal for a human being to evolve one's views and opinions. I can only speak for myself but the way I approach it, I focus on the useful or pleasant (or both) things that I can do, and don't pay much attention to people's ideas, or the famous potential 5D chess unless I genuinely understand the 5D chess in a particular area, based on knowledge or years of research, etc.. When it comes to the people I don't personally know, I usually pay attention to intangible things, like sincerity and general intellectual integrity and whether a person does things from love. If that's there, then I take the person seriously, regardless of whether I agree in a particular topic. So far, Dr. Malone impressed me as sincere and passionate, and I like him. He is not without contradictions, and I don't agree with everything that ever came out of his mouth, but I think that contradictions come from complexity. And as far as controlled opposition, I think it is literally impossible to know in most cases. At this point everybody has called everybody controlled opposition, and the phrase itself became meaningless. :))
And I am so glad we can discuss it like normal human beings, with figuring things out as we go! Thank you for that.