Or, maybe, because mattering is not helpful for problems ? That's
not what Walsch says. He says that even if we are not helpful it
does not matter. It matters not whether we are helpful or not. We
should just not matter. Even if this decision of not mattering
much badly affects others, it does not matter, because the fact of
not mattering oneself matters more anyway than any effects our
decisions could have upon others. Our personal spiritual
self-comfort of not mattering about anything matters much more
than anything that could happen to others.
Even if its effect is to force them to matter hundred times harder
than the little matter we could avoid this way. Because it does
not really force them even if it has this effect. It is their
problem, not ours. It is their choice of who they are, not ours.
It is their fault if they matter. They just should not matter. So
we should teach them that they are stupid and wrong to matter. If
they still refuse to stop mattering, then does it matter ? Yes
because mattering is what matters. No because nothing matters.
Anyway, it does not matter. We should not even matter about the
mattering of others. Our only concern should just be to persuade
ourself that nothing matters, and stop mattering ourselves,
whatever happens to others.
Thank you for your remarks that will
help me complete my page and avoid misunderstandings.
All right, I admit I made a little exaggerations in my summary of
Walsch's doctrine, it was to show its limits.
And well, all right, my disagreement also comes from complementary
ideas that I did not explain and I should explain (but I have many
projects and my time to correct everything is limited).
> Hey there,
> I was just reading your criticism of
the books of Neale D. Walsch, and
> I just felt like you misinterpreted
some of his 'teachings'. I would
> like to comment.
> You state that "You do not have to seek
knowledge (because you
> already have knowledge, as a spirit
connected to the Whole), but you
> have to act to express Who You Are
without worrying about the result,
> because the result is assured: nothing
is bad, nothing matters,
> nothing does oppose the will of God or
escapes Him, because God is
> all, accepts all and will be always
there to recover us."
> 'God' has never said that knowledge is
not important in your life. You
> can seek knowledge all you want. God
only said that you've come here
> not to gain knowledge but to remember.
Remembering presents you with
> knowledge. You will still need to find
out how to get to the grocery
> store, or how to write HTML. And you
will need to observe how things
> happen: what causes what. It is just
that this kind of knowledge is
> not the purpose of life. The purpose of
life is to remember and
> recreate Who You Are. So, seek
knowledge all you want, and use it to
> your benefit. But just remember that if
you're looking at the key
> process of life (and probably /only/ if
you're looking at the key
> process of life), it is about
remembering and not about acquiring. For
> all other purposes: acquire all the
knowledge you need. God has never
> said anything to oppose that.
I have a different conception about what is the key process of
My conception is a scientific one. Scientifically, the notion of
key process is not a matter of what things deeply "are", but the
what is the logic by which they work together.
And : looking for the key process of life : what for ?
I need not care about who I am deeply. Because anyway I know that
I cannot access it in this life but I will access it after this
life, no matter
what I am trying now.
What I need to care most about in this life is the question of
what should I do for the sake of mankind. Because mankind is now
in a critical
process, that may lead to a catastrophy or to a golden age. In
particular a big problem is to protect the environment.
And in this critical process, with my intelligence I may be very
My contribution can be equivalent to saving millions of life.
So I consider that my own life and my personal (spiritual...)
purpose in life, should be placed in the background of importance
in comparison with
the large number of lives that I can save with my projects. And
many people could also be this way helpful, if only they were able
to let their rational intelligence work. But only very few are
doing so, and I observe that Walsch's teachings does not lead them
very specially to do so.
Yeah he does not either tell them to not do so, but this is not
enough : he misses the point.
So reading Walsch's teachings, people are believing they accessed
very important teaching, but here they forget that it is possible
to do better.
> God has never said that you shouldn't
care about the results of your
> actions. It is the results you are
after. It is the results that form
> a big part of the reason for doing
something, together with your
> understanding of causal relationships.
That's also how you discover
> whether you want to do something in a
certain way: by the results. God
> only said that you had better not fill
your activity with
> expectations, because the expectations
ruin the experience.
By what magic ?
For me, the matter is to manage to be rational.
A rational person does not make irrational expectations, but
calculates exactly what should be done to reach the best result.
As being rational is
the condition to find this action that reaches the best result,
and therefore it is the way we should follow.
In this case, there will be no matter of expectations that will
ruin the result.
I agree there is a problem here: very few people are able to
practice this level of rationality, even if they want to.
Therefore, things are different from one person to another, and no
general teaching can be validly "the best for everybody" though
teachings which should be stated for some cases.
> You claim that the books do not
recognize the need for taking
> responsibility for ones actions, but
God has never said anything like
> that. It is /about/ responsibility, if
The problem is that, by nature, the question of responsibility
requires certain methods to be properly handled, that is the
Walsch misses this point.
Without giving the direction of a proper method, saying that one
admits responsibility, is useless.
In fact, I consider that our responsibility in this life is to
search for our responsibilities that may be hidden at first. And
we need a proper method to find them.
If Walsch pretends to speak about key matters of life and does not
consider this point and properly efficient ways to the methods
then I consider that he misses all the point.
> You write about Walsch's promotional
spirit, as if promotion is a bad
> thing. I too believe the teachings by
Walsch are one of the most
> important in today's world, vastly
surpassing anything I've read from
> classic Christianity. Can this not be
I agree that classic Christianity is a dangerous bullshit and that
Walsch's position is a bit better. So well if he manages to point
out some errors of Christianity and helps a number of people
escape it then it is a good point.
But the fact it is new with respect to classic Christianity does
not mean that it is a revelation in itself, nor that it is from
Indeed, someone else pointed out that nothing of Walsch's
teachings is new, but the sources are outside classic
> will they be?") Apparently, it is wrong
to be rich.
I don't mean that.
Money can be okay if it is fair. Here I consider it is not: made
out of lies, pretending to receive a revelation from God and that
it be new, while it is in fact copied from old sources and
inspired by very human intelligence; pretending that it is a
universal key to life while it is some incomplete clues that may
make you believe you got a much bigger revelation than what you
really have, and that makes you miss some other more important
> You write "why does he give us the
mission of spreading his fine words
> exactly as if it were about a perfect
thought, and that to spread it
> would be The Means sufficient to bring
peace on the Earth with no need
> to think more seriously on the details
(as we don't need any more
> knowledge since we already have it) ?
But that is not true at all,
> these ideas alone cannot bring peace on
> He does not say his ideas are prefect.
But he needs to promote them,
> doesn't he? Wouldn't you? And I believe
these ideas can bring us One
> Big Step closer to world peace. The
ideas won't do it alone, mind you.
> They will need careful consideration by
many many individuals, all
> considering these ideas to see if they
can make use of them.
Yeah but how much do you think these ideas should be transformed
to become best ?
I consider they should be so much transformed that the best result
can be more easily obtained without reading Walsch at the start.
So I don't think it brings us any one step closer.
It will be as good to invent solutions independently never
mentioning Walsch nor anything of his teachings. I even consider
it would be better if done in the right way.
Anyway, whatever you say, Walsch's ideas will only have a very
little % of success with the whole population and it will not have
any significant impact to the serious things of this world.
Because the serious things of this world is not about whether
people remember what they are, but it is how they manage to
protect the environment, and what technology can change our
> does Walsch state that we need not
think about these ideas. You have
> misinterpreted his teaching on
Knowledge and now use it whenever you
> see fit, and yet serious thinking is at
the core of this teaching:
> find the answers within. Think about
it. Explore it. Criticize it. See
> if you can do better. Have you not read
his ideas on the school system?
Yeah but the question is how to manage to efficiently examine the
The right answer is by scientific method. Walsch does not lead us
to this right method, on the contrary he indicates us methods that
have little efficiency.
When he presents us his ideas on what should be taught at school,
science and scientific thinking methods are not properly
There is little chance for ideas to be properly examined in this
> You state that you have a technological
solution of the need to attain
> transparency. Apparently, you believe
that such a system (I have not
> taken the time to look at it in detail)
will be immediately accepted
> by the world population, while another
system of economical
> transparency will not.
> In my eyes, a technical system is
> its acceptance is always based on the
state of mind of the populance,
> which is a spiritual factor.
The point is that transparency is not sufficient in itself to make
a working and best system.
I consider that acceptance of transparency is not a matter of
whether people have a favorable idea or not about transparency (anyway
the ideas they have and you can't change them), but whether the
transparent system that you are proposing is working and useful in all its
other aspects. Because people anyway don't care so much about
transparency, but rather about whether they can make good business
this system. And the question to be efficient and support good
is not just a matter of transparency.
> By the way: the world need not become a
Walschian every one of us, but
> only needs to recognize some very sound
principles, that do not
> require any faith at all, only
observation, observation and observation.
Yeah so the role of Walsch here is very small.
One of the important principles is to use the scientific method or
at least accept the conclusions of those who can do it, in many
This does not appear in Walsch's teachings.