Lucy said:
Of course, not everyone who "reads" a novel in this 'incomplete' way is necessarily an OP, but perhaps if we can 'remember' the 'feeling' of such experiences with others it will give us a clue as to the 'flavor' of interacting with an OP?
Yes, "flavor" is a good word. I often use "taste." I had two experiences of this many years ago when I was having an intense discussion with an individual who was very close to me (two individuals, two experiences) and, at some point in the conversation, when the other person had said a number of things that made it clear we weren't "communicating", I began to feel a very strange sensation as though I was in one reality and this person was in another, and our words meant completely different things in each reality. I kept trying, breaking the concepts down to be more and more simple, and finally I realized that the other person just simply could not grasp an abstract idea at all.
Since, in both cases, the individual in question had become very close to me over time, this was very disorienting and disturbing. I realized - almost with a heart-stopping thud - that I was alone. I had thought I was communicating with someone who understood everything I had ever said, someone who gave the "right feedback" to make me think that, but it was clear at that moment that they had NEVER understood what I was saying AS I intended it to be understood. There was some chasm between us that could not be crossed no matter how I tried.
Of course, the first thing you think when you experience something like that is that maybe you are seeing too much, that you are reading things into - say a book - that aren't there. But then, you might read the ideas of someone else who has read the book and realize that, yes, what you were perceiving IS perceived by others, just not the others right close to you!
And yes, I think that the whole "Green Language" thing is all about this deeper layer of communication. That's why I was SO disappointed with Bridges and Weidner's book about Fulcanelli. I realized, about 1/3 of the way through it, that they didn't have a clue. And this was after a year or more of exchanges and discussion where they gave the impression that they were going to produce the goods, the definitive analysis, and I was waiting with baited breath.
Yes, there were clues throughout the early exchange that maybe we weren't talking the same language and that was one of the reasons I started writing the Wave Series - to try to break all these ideas down into simple form and give real life examples, metaphors, allegories, and so on - in hopes that it would bridge the chasm. But no, it seems that the ones who cannot "get it" are the ones who pronounce it to be a "rant."
Back in 2004, during one of the workshops, I started thinking about all of this in a certain way. I noticed that communication between people is so difficult - you think you are understood, and an hour later the other person will say or do something that makes it clear that nothing you have said has been grokked at all - that this is the chief difficulty in human relations. So, as I observed the many people and interactions, as I listened when people came to me with their version of events, and then another person would come with a different version of the same events, I started to think about "reality bubbles."
In general, perception of the world outside us occurs through our five senses. But it is our interpretation of those signals that decides what they mean. So, everything is "translated" by the filter of the "reality bubble" into that person's definitions and internal explanations of the world. Their definitions and explanations are based on experiences, conditioning, etc. For example, if a person was scared by a clown when they were little, then all clowns are going to be perceived with a bit of a twist "clowns=bad, scary". It's like a distortion ground into a lens through which you view the world.
So it is that, as we move through our world, we are surrounded, in effect, by an energy bubble. I pictured it as a bubble of various levels of clarity and permeability that surrounds each person. This "bubble energy" seemed to act as the primary filter through which all experiences were perceived. As a filter, it strained, altered, rearranged, distorted, a person's interpretation of the world.
So, as "wave reading consciousness units," if our READER capacity is distorted by the lenses that have been "ground and polished" by experience and even fundamental nature, we have a problem.
We proceed through our lives surrounded by this bubble, this "energy lens" and it is with THIS, and not our inner self, that we interact with the world. Information coming to us has to pass through this filter first and the filter works to mold the information to conform with the belief systems, reality dictionary and
conditioning of the person. What we see or hear may be what we get, but it may not necessarily be an exact copy or even a reasonable facsimile of the original message.
So the person attempting to communicate is not even aware that what they have communicated (which may be already based on a faulty understanding because of their own "reality filter") is not at all received by the other person as they intended.
How to solve this problem?
Well, I try to deal with it when writing by using stories and metaphors and examples so that no matter how the reader's "reality filter" is configured, there will be a way to get it.
But in personal communications, how to deal with it?
We have learned in QFG that we CAN get pretty close to true understanding by a robust feedback mechanism. If enough members of a group give feedback on a subject, each in their own way, there are enough overlaps in word usage and style that a fairly accurate idea finally emerges for everyone. Yes, one, or a few, or even all, may have to make some "filter adjustments" during the process, and it's not even a calculated thing - it just happens - with the end result being that pretty much everyone finally "gets it."
It seems that, in such a process, the Primary Filter, the personal interface, or reality bubble is being "re-ground" or readjusted or calibrated to allow the reception of accurate communication.
Well, that's all fine and good for people who are aware that communication is a great difficulty and who are willinng to work and even give up beliefs, prejudices, biases; but what about OPs who don't seem to have the capacity to look at themselves at all and even see that they have any such thing as a belief, prejudice or bias?
That's where reading about psychopathy helped me to understand something important: since they do not have the "inner connection" to souled humans, they are only very complex emulators. As Meloy said about psychopaths, the OP "has no awareness of this "false self" or the "as if" quality of his phenomenal experience. He does not merely play the role, observing the limits of his character, but lives the part."
The difference between the OP and the psychopath seems to be that the psychopath is intentionally, consciouslly, mimics a targeted person's attitudes and behavior to get something and the OP does not do this consciously.
Why?
I think it is because of what the OP has that the psychopath does not: a rudimentary emotional center.
The C's related the "chakras" to the Centers as explicated by the "Tradition" brought to the Western world by Gurdjieff through Ouspensky and later by Mouravieff. It seems that the OP has:
Lower moving center - basal chakra
Lower emotional - sexual chakra
Lower intellectual - throat chakra
Now, if a psychopath is a "failed OP," in the terms Darren has defined (which I think might be the answer) "an inability to reproduce the higher centers in effect," we can theorize that the proper balance of the above three lower centers IS able to "emulate."
The psychopath is defined as being "without conscience" and, to a certain extent, I think that OPs have a sort of rudimentary conscience that relates to their "soul pool" connection which is probably "connected" via one of the above centers, possibly the lower emotional, or sexual chakra.
And here, I come to a stop because I don't think that a psychopath could exist without being connected in some way to a "soul pool" energy and the only answer that presents itself is that such are connected - via a quirk of genetics - to a reptilian soul pool while OPs are connected to mammalian soul pools.
It seems almost as though the mammalian step of evolution was a step in the direction of conscious creation, a type of creature that cares for and nurtures it's young from it's own body, heats its own blood, etc. And, by being connected in some sense to this larger, overarching "soul type," the OP partakes of this "creative energy" and is thus not emulating in a consciously
predatory fashion, but rather there IS something very real and fundamental about its tendency toward soul qualities in the same way a germinating seed moves toward the light.
So the "rudimentary emotional center" of the OP could simply be this connection to the taxon: mammalia.
I admit that it is a strange thing to think about a human looking being, a mammal by definition, with a reptilian Operating System. Anybody got a better idea?
