Are you arrogant? Oh, no, not you? How dare I say that?

3-year-old-boyYesterday I had a coaching call. One of the students was talking about her difficulty of getting to sleep and then starting her day.

I checked her vibration and it was 130, slightly under her usual vibration of 150. As usual, she was scared of what may get revealed in our interaction about her. Rightfully so…

What got revealed that she scans the articles on my site, and at such low vibration you are also low on intelligence, low on comprehension, low on patience.



I call the behavior of scanning Ph.D level articles arrogance.

How many of you are Ph.D. in “ontology” and transformation? None of you. You are at best a kindergartners… And when you scan something that unless you read it quite a few times, and then ponder it, and the ponder it some more, you are arrogant.

Arrogant is a nice name for stupid. Moronic, in fact.

When you go for quantity hoping that if you get a lot, you’ll be a lot, you are stupid.

But how you do anything is how you do everything: You eat the same way, I bet, and you have indigestion, stomach ache, and such.

You dishonor life, you dishonor Nature, you dishonor knowledge, you dishonor yourself.

You collect badges: I read that, and I read that… I know everything. Your behavior is stuck on the level of a 3-year old, the age of ultimate arrogance. A 3-year old refuses help, because he already knows everything. The next very arrogant age is, of course, teenagers, 15-16 old.

I am on some crossroads now. I need to make a decision if I am going to hire an editor to rewrite my ph.D. level content to match your level of understanding, or not.

The thinking point is: will you benefit from my material if it comes in a digestible form, or will you still just scan it, and never ponder, never look beyond the curtain.

My hunch is, at least with my USA readers, is that you are hopeless… Readers in Europe, maybe because of the language barrier, actually read the articles… until, familiarity breeds contempt, they think that they know everything…

With great power comes great responsibility. But is the responsibility telling me to force-feed you, is responsibility telling me to not throw my pearls in front of swine?

You tell me. I haven’t decided yet.

Subscribe to blog notifications.
You'll get a digest email every Sunday... you can email me to upgrade to daily.

Author: Sophie Benshitta Maven

True empath, award winning architect, magazine publisher, transformational and spiritual coach and teacher, self declared Avatar

7 thoughts on “Are you arrogant? Oh, no, not you? How dare I say that?”

  1. My vote is don’t hire an editor to dumb down your articles. They’ll have to chop out too much and make the articles lose too much value. If you feel compelled to do it, could you set up a separate website for the dumbed-down articles and keep the unedited versions on this website?

    There are some of us who study your articles and read them over and over to try to get everything you’re saying. But even with that, I still find a lot of it goes over my head. You’re way out of my league. But I do get some of it and would hate to lose the opportunity to try to get it.

  2. I don’t understand how you could edit the articles and keep the sense of them.

    Like Kathryn and others, I read and re-read the articles (and do the same with the videos/mp3s).

    Today I was re-listening to Werner Erhard talking about authenticity and responsibility. I felt like I understood a little bit more than when I last listened a few weeks ago, and with the ever-so- slightly widened perspective. I have overlooked this in the past, but now I understand that I am experiencing the change I work towards, each time there is a little bit of movement. It’s not big or flashy.

    And I see reading your articles the same way; study them, put something into action, penetrate a layer, repeat … I would be sad if you took the layers of meaning out of the articles (if I have correctly understood your intention in possibly having them edited).

    I also wonder, would the truth value of an article be altered by the vibration of the person editing it?

    I am grateful for your writing Sophie.

  3. Good point, Catherine, about the vibration of the person defining the level of articles. The rewriting would be from the second floor of existence, maximum, given that humanity lives on the first and second floor… I live way in the clouds… sounds very romantic, but it isn’t.

    I am going to attempt to write shorter articles that maybe open glimpses to higher vibrations to those that read it, we shall see if I can.

    Werner Erhard was known to say everything important seven times when he taught it. He said that he needed to say until he himself heard that it rings true for himself.

    His vibration is around 500, and his audience’s vibration is way way lower, including the “Forum Leaders” and he was listening to the echo… the echo ate most of what he said, and sent back distorted, dumbed down version of it… I listen to the echo myself, and I know exactly what he is experiencing in his life.

    The difference between Werner and myself is that he is charismatic, I think. Judging from my results, I lack in that front.

    Thank you for sharing.

    By the way, I have a “spy” program, and I can tell how long a person hangs out with an article, without actually knowing who the person is, just seeing the activity.

  4. By ‘echo’ do you mean what his audience understood about what he said, reflected back to him?

    Does Werner connect to Source? If not, that is a difference between you and Werner that might make where you are both operating from, very different.

  5. Understanding is a mental process, and includes all the filters the information goes through. Most understanding distorts the information. And what gets reflected back is that distorted information.

    Pure echo comes, reflected back when the filters are not activated. Just like with sound echo: you can hear yourself clearly.

    Werner does not connect to Source. He is 99.99% intellectual, that is why he isn’t above 500.

  6. Even though, I resonate with Kathryn’s remarks, I don’t revisit these articles nearly enough. It occurred to me that my perspective was more of a ‘let me take a bite of this great piece of knowledge’ approach. Now, I do realize that I would never want to be without your writing, but my cursory approach is certainly not beneficial to anyone. Thank you for helping to see a distinction here, and if you had your writing edited by someone on the ‘second floor’, I don’t see you being ultimately pleased with that. Just my 2 cents

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.