The Predator - a dark truth right under your own nose, literally

luke wilson said:
Why do you need anyone to see anything? What is this need for?

I wish to support them, because I know they are not black, but at the same time they are hurting at least some people in this network and my heart doesn't like that. My heart won't support people who are lying and hurting others.
I will now wait for answers and based on them will decide to either leave or stay.
 
d3ck3r said:
luke wilson said:
Why do you need anyone to see anything? What is this need for?

I wish to support them, because I know they are not black, but at the same time they are hurting at least some people in this network and my heart doesn't like that. My heart won't support people who are lying and hurting others.
I will now wait for answers and based on them will decide to either leave or stay.

Let's say you go publish your ebook, create a forum and run it for several years, then one day out of the blue someone comes along and within a few posts proclaims (preaching on your forum remember) that you are wrong, that you are lying, that you are brainwashing others, and that you are hurting others. How would your 'heart' react to that one wonders?

If you cannot see why you were met with the response you initially received, and the subsequent replies, well, what more can one say.
 
d3ck3r said:
luke wilson said:
Why do you need anyone to see anything? What is this need for?

I wish to support them, because I know they are not black, but at the same time they are hurting at least some people in this network and my heart doesn't like that. My heart won't support people who are lying and hurting others.

Ok, as you say say Decker.

In the meantime as you wait for the responses you require, on the subject of people lying to each other, my personal experience of this forum and the people who run it is that they don't do that.

The evidence I hold for example is the SOTT website they have, which is a really good source of getting information that in my opinion is waaaaay more accurate that what you would get on TV. I read this really interesting article yesterday that will illustrate it to you if you take the time to compare the level of quality of information provided by these people you've grown to somewhat dislike vs that of the mainstream

http://www.sott.net/article/294976-This-world-is-a-dystopian-freak-show-by-any-standards

Watch the videos in the article of the mainstream stooge Psaki. This is what passes for truth nowadays? I don't even know what it is personally... It's a complete break from common sense... it's not even that she's lying, she's just being totally schizophrenic.

Ontop of the wonderful resource that is SOTT, there is also this forum where people get together and discuss various issues within parameters that to me appear completely reasonable. A lot of people have benefited greatly from the work 'these' people have done.

I think you will also agree with that if you are to be honest with yourself!

So I wouldn't say that they are lying and hurting people. Wouldn't you agree? This is a reasonable conclusion to reach??

Some people however are annoyed and angry, like yourself, because some views you have don't fit within the confines of this environment. Not every single view a person holds will fit into every environment they are in, it's the way of the world.

As obyvatel said, just because some of your views don't fit doesn't necessarily mean this group is bad or that you are bad!

Regarding support, I would say it is best to support your wellbeing first and foremost and if being here is bad and painful for you, then by all means, don't feel you have to remain out of the greater good. Others who have issues they would like to raise for themselves, hopefully they feel comfortable enough to speak for themselves and not have you as a spokesperson on their behalf. It's not like 'these' people will send them into the gallows for airing out their thoughts!!!

I wish you all the best Decker, in all and everything that you do! :) Just don't be rude and abusive towards others who don't see things the way you do... :evil:
 
d3ck3r said:
Laura said:
But right away you must give up the idea that you have a clue about anything: you don't.

Those are Laura's words from this very topic. Did she proposed to me that I should think on my own and verify her data? Or did she demanded my submission to her ignorance right away? And what happened when I refused? - I was instantly banned and after it came doubtful assumptions about me, that distorted everyone's perception of reality. And I'm not saying here, that there wasn't any truth at all in those distortions, but just look how people react to me now - they are no longer able to see the light in me, they see only darkness.

It seems clear to me that you don't understand the meaning of what Laura says here. I don't see any demands to submit to her.
The meaning of "But right away you must give up the idea that you have a clue about anything: you don't." as I understand it, is that (apart from that you are clearly being very emotional, and resentful, and thus having a distorted view) that for the work being taught here, one has to understand that one is a "faulty camera".
We all have some blind spots, that makes us not see the whole picture, and our thoughts and feelings will fill out the blanks with things that are not really there, so we might not even think we have those blind spots.
If one wants to be able to see what is truly there, one has to understand, that what one sees, might be something that is not there. This is the only chance of getting to a place where one learns to recognize what is the reality, and what is blind spots filled with imaginary stuff.

So it is not about submission, it is teaching a way.

Laura isn't asking you to come here, you came here. This is Lauras school, she teaches what she knows, students that don't like the teachings are free to leave. Those who want to learn from her are free to stay.

I can't see that people are reacting with a distorted view on you due to anything Laura have said to you.

What I see, is you being very emotional and resentful. Perhaps also having some psychological problems that this forum isn't equipped to deal with. And I see people actually being kind, giving you several chances, even though you insult their teacher, and are acting like you really believe you are the savior who have come to show us sheep the way, and saying that all who can't see that have a distorted perception of reality.
 
d3ck3r said:
luke wilson said:
Why do you need anyone to see anything? What is this need for?

I wish to support them, because I know they are not black, but at the same time they are hurting at least some people in this network and my heart doesn't like that. My heart won't support people who are lying and hurting others.
I will now wait for answers and based on them will decide to either leave or stay.

I think you have received enough answers. People in this network are capable of making their own choice regarding this place - they do not need a savior. If they do not like how this place is run, they can click the "X" button at the right hand top corner of the window and that's that.

As for yourself, you cannot expect to come into some one else's house and continue to insult the hosts repeatedly - irrespective of how you wounded you are. In fact to me, it seems like this is more a case of pathological persistence and savior complex than wounding and emotional closure.
 
d3ck3r said:
luke wilson said:
Just walk away? This place holds to much pain for you.

That is exactly what I'm going to do if those people won't see what I tried to show them, so bans aren't needed. I'm simply giving them one last chance.

The problem here is that you had a subjective experience that is based in your personal perception of something (not objective fact that can be verified or otherwise), but you are convinced that it is the objective truth and you demand that everyone accept it as such. That's a major problem, and if you can't take a step back and at least accept that your personal experience and interpretation of the details may not be the complete truth, then I don't see how anyone is going to gain anything from discussing it with you. That's not some dictatorial rule, it plain common sense.
 
Perceval said:
d3ck3r said:
luke wilson said:
Just walk away? This place holds to much pain for you.

That is exactly what I'm going to do if those people won't see what I tried to show them, so bans aren't needed. I'm simply giving them one last chance.

The problem here is that you had a subjective experience that is based in your personal perception of something (not objective fact that can be verified or otherwise), but you are convinced that it is the objective truth and you demand that everyone accept it as such. That's a major problem, and if you can't take a step back and at least accept that your personal experience and interpretation of the details may not be the complete truth, then I don't see how anyone is going to gain anything from discussing it with you. That's not some dictatorial rule, it plain common sense.

Exactly ! This charade has run its course I'm inclined to say. :deadhorse:
 
d3ck3r said:
Alada said:
One way to counter the knee jerk reactions of the predator when they come up in us is to remember this: No one here should accept without question, anything that he or she has not first verified for themselves.

If there is something that we don't understand, can't quite get our head around, then leave it be until enough data is collected one way or the other. (...) That kind of thinking helps nobody, and infact, those that do swallow things wholesale in such a way without first verifying them, don't do themselves or the forum any favours.

I fully agree, but it took me years to understand that. Why? read further...

Alada said:
There is no YOU MUST BELIEVE THIS OR BE DAMNED required or wanted here.

And here is exactly where you're wrong and this is one of the very reasons why I've lost my faith in this group.

Years ago in Casschat I wasn't told that, at least I don't remember, but even if they did told me that, the group still pushed me to believe them word by word. There was a tradition in that group, that if someone didn't agreed with the rest, he/she was pushed hard enough to make him/her leave the group on his/her own. This tradition ended up in brainwashing me because that group was the only thing I had back then (and I really needed support after seeing those 2 souls because it was extremely shocking and terryfing), so I believed them to be smarter than me, because it was exactly what they wanted and that was a condition to stay in the group.

This brainwashing procedure led me to similar situation as the one with Breton. In time with this group, I've gradually started to loose my intelligence and perceptivity. After some time (especially on later group Casstraux) I started to act like a child (I even remember Iza noticing it) and I had a really hard time in understanding what people talked about - I remember when it tooked me days to understand what Ark said to someone from the group. Thankfully both groups were closed and I was left alone and eventually my intelligence returned. After years I've discovered that the reason for my lost intelligence was similar to Breton's - I didn't listened to my heart (True Self), that in my case wanted to criticize this group for what they did.

So I wonder Alada, is your point of view on that problem same as Laura's and others?

Laura said:
But right away you must give up the idea that you have a clue about anything: you don't.

Those are Laura's words from this very topic. Did she proposed to me that I should think on my own and verify her data? Or did she demanded my submission to her ignorance right away? And what happened when I refused? - I was instantly banned and after it came doubtful assumptions about me, that distorted everyone's perception of reality. And I'm not saying here, that there wasn't any truth at all in those distortions, but just look how people react to me now - they are no longer able to see the light in me, they see only darkness. It is a pathological white and black worldview and it is Laura's fruit - a rotten apple.
And I really don't care what you all think about me, I'm simply showing that many people around this forum are far from "thinking on their own" and that someone (Laura) is thinking for them. If the egotism of the predator inside me would be my concern, than I would never came to this forum with wish to tell you what I have discovered, because things that I have discovered are so extremely dark and terrifying, that people will eat me alive for sharing them. From Castaneda...

Carlos Castaneda "Active Side Of Infinity said:
After a moment's pause, long enough for me to recover, I asked don Juan: "But why is it that the sorcerers of ancient Mexico and all sorcerers today, although they see the predators, don't do anything about it?"
"There's nothing that you and I can do about it," don Juan said in a grave, sad voice. "All we can do is discipline ourselves to the point where they will not touch us. How can you ask your fellow men to go through those rigors of discipline? They'll laugh and make fun of you, and the more aggressive ones will beat the shit out of you. And not so much because they don't believe it. Down in the depths of every human being, there's an ancestral, visceral knowledge about the predators' existence."

My earlier egotism was a consequence of Laura's extreme ignorance in the very beginning of this topic. I came with good intentions of sharing what I've learned and she was the first one to throw a stone at me. I shared in this way, because I was curious if anyone will be interested in observing themselves as I did, to see if anyone else can find those things inside oneself and therefore to engage others in a collaborative study about it. I had the idea, that we can create that e-book together, what I have written there was only a very rough start of it. I wanted to engage others that would be interested, simply because I've read many times (from Laura too) that many people around this forum are doing nothing - and this doing nothing is another of Laura's rotten apples, because instead of inspiring others to conduct their own search, she is demanding submission and accepting everything from her without even giving it a thought. This is exactly what is seen in her words from this topic, that I've quoted above and it is exactly what caused my brainwashing in Casschat group. I didn't submit this time, because I've already knew what would happen - I would literally reject my True Self AGAIN and that isn't an option anymore.

[quote author=Laura"]
I have encountered people in very poor and backward circumstances who truly did not know that being clean was an option. They had been dirty all their lives. They looked curiously at my hands because they were not smudged with dirt.

You are extremely dirty with your constant aggressive violation of other people's wills and even more so with your ignorant lie, that you aren't dirty.

Alada said:
If we don't learn to think for ourselves, someone or something else will do the thinkng for us.

That someone/something (predator) is already doing the thinking for us. If it would be otherwise, than we wouldn't be in a sleep in the first place and therefore I've learned something even more important. It isn't only about thinking on our own. I've seen how predator manipulates me with his thoughts, so it isn't enough to say that we should think on our own. For me now, the truth is this: Think on your own, under the guidance of your heart.

And it is my heart/my True Self that guides me in this critical words and not because it wishes me to defame anyone, but because it wishes me to speak the truth aloud and to see what happens.
[/quote]

Thomas did you already read the following writtings, it could help you to understand what happened and what is happening now again:
"As has been explained before, there are many qualities which men
attribute to themselves, which in reality can belong only to people of a
higher degree of development and of a higher degree of evolution than man
number one, number two, and number three. Individuality, a single and
permanent I, consciousness, will, the ability to do, a state of inner
freedom, all these are qualities which ordinary man does not possess. To the
same category belongs the idea of good and evil, the very existence of
which is connected with a permanent aim, with a permanent direction and a
permanent center of gravity.

"The idea of good and evil is sometimes connected with the idea of truth and
falsehood. But just as good and evil do not exist for ordinary man, neither
do truth and falsehood exist. "Permanent truth and permanent falsehood can
exist only for a permanent man. If a man himself continually changes, then
for him truth and falsehood will also continually change. And if people are
all in different states at every given moment, their conceptions of truth
must be as varied as their conceptions of good. A man never notices how he
begins to regard as true what yesterday he considered as false and vice
versa. He does not notice these transitions just as he does not notice the
transitions of his own I's one into another.

"In the life of an ordinary man truth and falsehood have no moral value of
any kind because a man can never keep to one single truth. His truth
changes. If for a certain time it does not change, it is simply because it
is kept by 'buffers.' And a man can never tell the truth. Sometimes 'it
tells' the truth, sometimes 'it tells' a lie. Consequently his truth and his
falsehood have no value; neither of them depends upon him, both of them
depend upon accident. And this is equally true when applied to a man's
words, to his thoughts, his feelings, and to his conceptions of truth and
falsehood. "In order to understand the interrelation of truth and falsehood
in life a man must understand falsehood in himself, the constant incessant
lies he tells himself.

"These lies are created by 'buffers' In order to destroy the lies in oneself
as well as lies told unconsciously to others, 'buffers' must be destroyed.
But then a man cannot live without 'buffers.' 'Buffers' automatically
control a man's actions, words, thoughts, and feelings. If 'buffers' were to
be destroyed all control would disappear. A man cannot exist without
control even though it is only automatic control. Only a man who possesses
will, that is, conscious control, can live without 'buffers.' Consequently,
if a man begins to destroy 'buffers' within himself he must at the same
time develop a will. And as will cannot be created to order in a short
space of time a man may be left with 'buffers' demolished and with a will
that is not as yet sufficiently strengthened. The only chance he has during
this period is to be controlled by another will which has already been
strengthened.

"This is why in school work, which includes the destruction of 'buffers,' a
man must be ready to obey another man's will so long as his own will is not
yet fully developed. Usually this subordination to another man's will is
studied before anything else. I use the word 'studied' because a man must
understand why such obedience is necessary and he must learn to obey. The
latter is not at all easy. A man beginning the work of self-study with the
object of attaining control over himself is accustomed to believe in his own
decisions. Even the fact that he has seen the necessity for changing
himself shows him that his decisions are correct and strengthens his belief
in them. But when he begins to work on himself a man must give up his own
decisions, 'sacrifice his own decisions,' because otherwise the will of the
man who directs his work will not be able to control his actions.

"In schools of the religious way 'obedience' is demanded before anything
else, that is, full and unquestioning submission although without
understanding. Schools of the fourth way demand understanding before
anything else. Results of efforts are always proportional to understanding.

"Renunciation of his own decisions, subordination to the will of another,
may present insuperable difficulties to a man if he had failed to realize
beforehand that actually he neither sacrifices nor changes anything in his
life, that all his life he has been subject to some extraneous will and has
never had any decisions of his own. But a man is not conscious of this. He
considers that he has the right of free choice. It is hard for him to
renounce the illusion that he directs and organizes his life himself. But no
work on himself is possible until a man is free from this illusion.

"He must realize that he does not exist; he must realize that he can lose
nothing because he has nothing to lose; he must realize his 'nothingness' in
the full sense of the term.

"This consciousness of one's nothingness alone can conquer the fear of
subordination to the will of another. However strange it may seem, this fear
is actually one of the most serious obstacles on a man's path. A man is
afraid that he will be made to do things that are opposed to his principles,
views, and ideas. Moreover, this fear immediately creates in him. the
illusion that he really has principles, views, and convictions which in
reality he never has had and never could have. A man who has never in his
life thought of morality suddenly begins to fear that he will be made to do
something immoral. A man who has never thought of his health and who has
done everything possible to ruin it begins to fear that he will be made to
do something which will injure it. A man who has lied to everyone,
everywhere, all his life in the most barefaced manner begins suddenly to
fear that he will be made to tell lies, and so on without end. I knew a
drunkard who was afraid more than anything else that he would be made to
drink.

"The fear of being subordinated to another man's will very often proves
stronger than anything else. A man does not realize that a subordination to
which he consciously agrees is the only way to acquire a will of his own."
This exactly describes what happened to Ouspensky: "A man is afraid that he
will be made to do things that are opposed to his principles, views, and
ideas. Moreover, this fear immediately creates in him. the illusion that he
really has principles, views, and convictions which in reality he never has
had and never could have."

And based on this conviction, Ouspensky left Gurdjieff and set up his own
"school," when in fact, he never had the will to do anything, and the
evidence was his alcoholism. He literally drank himself to death.

But still, we have only danced around good and evil. I'm getting there. In
this next passage, we come very close to the main definition of "human"
evil:

Citer
"The study of the chief fault and the struggle against it constitute, as it
were, each man's individual path, but the aim must be the same for all. This
aim is the realization of one's nothingness. Only when a man has truly and
sincerely arrived at the conviction of his own helplessness and nothingness
and only when he feels it constantly, will he be ready for the next and much
more difficult stages of the work.

"All that has been said up till now refers to real groups connected with
real concrete work which in its turn is connected with what has been called
the 'fourth way.' But there are many imitation ways, imitation groups, and
imitation work. These are not even 'black magic.'

"Questions have often been asked at these lectures as to what is 'black
magic' and I have replied that there is neither red, green, nor yellow
magic. There is mechanics, that is, what 'happens,' and there is 'doing.'
'Doing' is magic and 'doing' can be only of one kind. There cannot be two
kinds of 'doing.' But there can be a falsification, an imitation of the
outward appearance of 'doing,' which cannot give any objective results but
which can deceive naive people and produce in them faith, infatuation,
enthusiasm, and even fanaticism.

"This is why in true work, that is, in true 'doing,' the producing of
infatuation in people is not allowed.

"What you call black magic is based on infatuation and on playing upon human
weaknesses.

"Black magic does not in any way mean magic of evil. I have already said
earlier that no one ever does anything for the sake of evil, in the
interests of evil. Everyone always does everything in the interests of good
as he understands it.

"In the same way it is quite wrong to assert that black magic must
necessarily be egoistical, that in black magic a man strives after some
results for himself. This is quite wrong. Black magic may be quite
altruistic, may strive after the good of humanity or after the salvation of
humanity from real or imaginary evils.

"But what can be called black magic has always one definite characteristic.
This characteristic is the tendency to use people for some, even the best of
aims, without their knowledge and understanding, either by producing in
them faith and infatuation or by acting upon them through fear."
In the next passage, Gurdjieff describes what has actually happened to his
own work, the many "schools" that have been created by his "annointed"
followers and their "students."

Citer
"But it must be remembered in this connection that a 'black magician,'
whether good or evil, has at all events been at a school. He has learned
something, has heard something, knows something. He is simply a 'half-
educated man' who has either been turned out of a school or who has himself
left a school having decided that he already knows enough, that he does not
want to be in subordination any longer, and that he can work independently
and even direct the work of others."
This pretty much describes Ouspensky and ALL of Gurdjieff's students!

Citer
"All 'work' of this kind can produce only subjective results, that is to
say, it can only increase deception and increase sleep instead of decreasing
them.

"Nevertheless something can be learned from a 'black magician' although in
the wrong way. He can sometimes by accident even tell the truth. That is why
I say that there are many things worse than 'black magic.' Such are various
'occult' and theosophical societies and groups. Not only have their
teachers never been at a school but they have never even met anyone who has
been near a school. Their work simply consists in aping. But imitation work
of this kind gives a great deal of self-satisfaction. One man feels himself
to be a 'teacher,' others feel that they are 'pupils,' and everyone is
satisfied. No realization of one's nothingness can be got here and if
people affirm that they have it, it is all illusion and self-deception, if
not plain deceit. On the contrary, instead of realizing their own
nothingness the members of such circles acquire a realization of their own
importance and a growth of false personality."
I'm sure you realize that the C's are very much a "school" and later
Gurdjieff describes exactly this sort of "initiation" as the ONLY kind of
initiation that is valid. Gurdjieff's initiation, I think, came via moving
center oriented events similar to the events I experienced with the C's via
the emotional and intellectual centers.

Citer
"At first it is very difficult to verify whether the work is right or
wrong, whether the directions received are correct or incorrect. The
theoretical part of the work may prove useful in this respect, because a man
can judge more easily from this aspect of it. He knows what he knows and
what he does not know.

"He knows what can be learned by ordinary means and what cannot."
This last is VERY important. A person must have done all they can do on
their own before they even seek out a "school." Otherwise, they cannot know
"what can be learned by ordinary means."

Citer
"And if he learns something new, something that cannot be learned in the
ordinary way from books and so on, this, to a certain extent, is a guarantee
that the other, the practical side, may also be right. But this of course
is far from being a full guarantee because here also mistakes are possible.

"All occult and spiritualistic societies and circles assert that they
possess a new knowledge. And there are people who believe it.

"In properly organized groups no faith is required; what is required is
simply a little trust and even that only for a little while, for the sooner
a man begins to verify all he hears the better it is for him.

"The struggle against the 'false I,' against one's chief feature or chief
fault, is the most important part of the work, and it must proceed in deeds,
not in words.

"For this purpose the teacher gives each man definite tasks which require,
in order to carry them out, the conquest of his chief feature. When a man
carries out these tasks he struggles with himself, works on himself. If he
avoids the tasks, tries not to carry them out, it means that either he does
not want to or that he cannot work.

"As a rule only very easy tasks are given at the beginning which the teacher
does not even call tasks, and he does not say much about them but gives
them in the form of hints. If he sees that he is understood and that the
tasks are carried out he passes on to more and more difficult ones.

"More difficult tasks, although they are only subjectively difficult, are
called 'barriers.'

"The peculiarity of barriers consists in the fact that, having surmounted a
serious barrier, a man can no longer return to ordinary sleep, to ordinary
life. And if, having passed the first barrier, he feels afraid of those that
follow and does not go on, he stops so to speak between two barriers and is
unable to move either backwards or forwards. This is the worst thing that
can happen to a man. Therefore the teacher is usually very careful in the
choice of tasks and barriers, in other words, he takes the risk of giving
definite tasks requiring the conquest of inner barriers only to those people
who have already shown themselves sufficiently strong on small barriers.

"It often happens that, having stopped before some barrier, usually the
smallest and the most simple, people turn against the work, against the
teacher, and against other members of the group, and accuse them of the very
thing that is becoming revealed to them in themselves."
As you may notice, this has happened with a number of our former members.
They stopped before the simplest and easiest barriers and have subsequently
turned against us, loudly and vehemently accusing us (usually me, who set up
the task) of the very things of which they, themselves, are guilty.

Citer
"Sometimes they repent later and blame themselves, then they again blame
others, then they repent once more, and so on. But there is nothing that
shows up a man better than his attitude towards the work and the teacher
after he has left it.

"Sometimes such tests are arranged intentionally. A man
is placed in such a position that he is obliged to leave and he is fully
justified in having a grievance either against the teacher or against some
other person. And then he is watched to see how he will behave. A decent man
will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or
wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature
which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary means
for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to
you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?

"But this is not the chief thing; the chief thing is his own personal
attitude, his own valuation of the ideas which he receives or has received,
and his keeping or losing this valuation. A man may think for a long time
and quite sincerely that he wants to work and even make great efforts, and
then he may throw up everything and even definitely go against the work;
justify himself, invent various fabrications, deliberately ascribe a wrong
meaning to what he has heard, and so on."

"What happens to them for this?" asked one of the audience.

"Nothing—what could happen to them?" said G. "They are their own punishment.
And what punishment could be worse? [...]

The rest here:https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,215.0.html
 
Thanks, Zak, for bringing those quotes together in this context. They really sum up the issue here and someone either gets it or they don't. No one is forcing those who don't understand the purpose of the forum to stay.
 
Mr. Premise said:
Thanks, Zak, for bringing those quotes together in this context. They really sum up the issue here and someone either gets it or they don't. No one is forcing those who don't understand the purpose of the forum to stay.

All this talk of authorities and submitting, being forced too and looking for saviours etc reminds me of authoritarian followers.
Sure we can all have a bit of that programming, but if someone cannot see they have there own autonomy and are free to choose, free to stay or not, free to learn or not, free to put in the effort to understand (both on there own and through interacting with the group) or not.
Well, what does that say if they can't go there?

If they then come back to the forum and want to lead others (because they are blind) then that is another clue about there authoritarian bias perhaps.

Having seen this happen on many occasions, I was always at a loss as to why they felt the need to come back if they saw they didn't fit?

"Authoritarians are highly submissive to established authority, aggressive in the name of that authority, and conventional to the point of insisting everyone should behave as their authorities decide. They are fearful and self-righteous and have a lot of hostility in them that they readily direct toward various outgroups. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason, and rely instead on social support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use lots of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times, and are often hypocrites. But they are also Teflon-coated when it comes to guilt. They are blind to themselves, ethnocentric and prejudiced, and as close-minded as they are narrow-minded."

http://www.sott.net/article/285142-Global-Pathocracy-Authoritarian-Followers-and-the-Hope-of-the-World
It becomes clear why such people - with intense moral concerns combined with a reliance on external moral structures to keep one's own forbidden impulses in check - would support a state that enforces moral rules and a social culture that stigmatizes those who violate those rules. It really is a threat to them - a threat to their own inner moral order - when the society around them fails to be clear in its rules and strict in its enforcement. ...

It is their dependence on the strength and integrity of the external moral order that drives many "exo-skeletons" to crusade to make the whole world around them conform to the moral system to which they themselves are striving to adhere. The unspoken - and generally unacknowledged - need is: please, society, be morally strict enough to keep me on the straight-and-narrow path."

And in the end, it comes down to pain and wether avoiding that pain is more important to you than anything else.
If you are solely driven by avoiding pain, then the perceived source of that pain needs to be destroyed. Moralistic arguments can be constructed, but that's what it seems to boil down too. You cause me pain, I will destroy you (and make my pain go away).
Authoritarian or just extremely injured and unable to bare the pain of the truth (having never healed the past pain), either way it tends to be the same result.

http://www.sott.net/article/244527-The-Necessity-of-Disillusionment
Whatever the degree of deception, the realization that one has been believing in a lie is a painful experience, not only psychologically but physically as well. Like a punch to the stomach, it can feel like one's breath has been taken away. And because our beliefs about the world are interconnected with other beliefs fixed in our brains, the destruction of one belief can often lead to a cascade of collapse of many others.

When a person is confronted with facts that contradict currently held belief systems, they have one of two choices. The first choice is to go into denial mode by rejecting the facts as being untrue in order to prop up their chosen belief system and continue living as before. The second choice is to accept the new data and try and reconstruct a new internal paradigm or map of reality that accommodates the new information, which may mean putting into question all other beliefs associated with the old model.

The second choice is difficult and takes a great deal of strength in order to let go of one's preconceived ideas and accept the new and factual data. The first choice is easy because it requires no effort, pain, sadness, or reordering of one's life or values. It is also more comfortable, and because humans generally prefer comfort over pain, the first choice is often the default option.


The exact moment when a person becomes aware of facts that go against what is believed to be true, they experience what psychologists call cognitive dissonance; it is that tense, uncomfortable sensation that what one sees is so out of sync with what one already believes to be true, that the mind instantly rejects it, even when the facts are plain and indisputable.

It is in this moment of experiencing cognitive dissonance (you can recognize it by the tension and discomfort that triggers a "knee-jerk" reaction) that the crucial battle for truth over fiction takes place. If a person can muster the awareness and strength of will to not give in and take the comfortable route by immediately dismissing the facts outright, and hold the conflicting information in their minds while consciously experiencing the negative feelings associated with cognitive dissonance, the resulting liberation can be transformational. It has to be experienced to be believed!

The interesting thing about our tendency to stick with old belief systems, even when faced with hard evidence to the contrary, is the neuro-chemical reward factor. Scientific studies have shown that when experiencing cognitive dissonance (the tension and stress produced when presented with facts that undermine one's normal perception of reality), the decision (knee-jerk reaction) to ignore the factual data and sweep any contradictory evidence under the rug causes the brain to release certain chemicals, making us feel happy and safe again.

So, if believing in an illusion makes us feel safe, happy and comfortable, and any contradictory evidence causes us pain, disorientation and sadness, what possible motivation is there to consciously choose to go through the process of disillusionment?

The love and desire for Truth.
 
Miss.K said:
Laura isn't asking you to come here, you came here. This is Lauras school, she teaches what she knows, students that don't like the teachings are free to leave. Those who want to learn from her are free to stay.

I can't see that people are reacting with a distorted view on you due to anything Laura have said to you.

What I see, is you being very emotional and resentful. Perhaps also having some psychological problems that this forum isn't equipped to deal with. And I see people actually being kind, giving you several chances, even though you insult their teacher, and are acting like you really believe you are the savior who have come to show us sheep the way, and saying that all who can't see that have a distorted perception of reality.
All this reminds me of someone whose blog has recently closed, how much energy is spent (you could feel free to say for nothing)?
 
D3ck3r I really don't believe you are going to get a please don't leave from anyone... It's time to man up and leave or admit your childish behaviour and do some reading up and most probably apologize to some members of this group and definitely to Laura.
 
Thank you Zak and Redfox for the last posts

RedFox said:
-snip-
When a person is confronted with facts that contradict currently held belief systems, they have one of two choices. The first choice is to go into denial mode by rejecting the facts as being untrue in order to prop up their chosen belief system and continue living as before. The second choice is to accept the new data and try and reconstruct a new internal paradigm or map of reality that accommodates the new information, which may mean putting into question all other beliefs associated with the old model.

The second choice is difficult and takes a great deal of strength in order to let go of one's preconceived ideas and accept the new and factual data. The first choice is easy because it requires no effort, pain, sadness, or reordering of one's life or values. It is also more comfortable, and because humans generally prefer comfort over pain, the first choice is often the default option.


The exact moment when a person becomes aware of facts that go against what is believed to be true, they experience what psychologists call cognitive dissonance; it is that tense, uncomfortable sensation that what one sees is so out of sync with what one already believes to be true, that the mind instantly rejects it, even when the facts are plain and indisputable.

It is in this moment of experiencing cognitive dissonance (you can recognize it by the tension and discomfort that triggers a "knee-jerk" reaction) that the crucial battle for truth over fiction takes place. If a person can muster the awareness and strength of will to not give in and take the comfortable route by immediately dismissing the facts outright, and hold the conflicting information in their minds while consciously experiencing the negative feelings associated with cognitive dissonance, the resulting liberation can be transformational. It has to be experienced to be believed!

The interesting thing about our tendency to stick with old belief systems, even when faced with hard evidence to the contrary, is the neuro-chemical reward factor. Scientific studies have shown that when experiencing cognitive dissonance (the tension and stress produced when presented with facts that undermine one's normal perception of reality), the decision (knee-jerk reaction) to ignore the factual data and sweep any contradictory evidence under the rug causes the brain to release certain chemicals, making us feel happy and safe again.

So, if believing in an illusion makes us feel safe, happy and comfortable, and any contradictory evidence causes us pain, disorientation and sadness, what possible motivation is there to consciously choose to go through the process of disillusionment?

The love and desire for Truth.

Amen to that!

I think though that it is not only when one believes something and see facts that contradict the belief that cognitive dissonance happens, it is also when one has doubts as to what is the truth.

Though Gurdieff is right about that "a drunkard is suddenly afraid to be made to drink" I think that the being scared of believing something that is not true even if one don't think one knows what the truth is, can be as uncomfortable as getting beliefs shattered by facts, there is just a little less selfimportance involved then perhaps..

I'm for example smart enough to know that I'm not so smart. This means that I know that I might believe things that are not true, and so it would be wonderful if I had something bulletproof to lean on, but I'm also smart enough to know, that even smarter people than me might not be as smart as I think. So when I have doubts of something, there is not 100% proof in facts presented, as I might not be smart enough to see the fault in an argument or so.

What have made me stop feeling uncomfortable about that in relation to the group here, is that I've found over the years about this forum, and the great work freely given by Laura and the crew, is that there is no other place I've come across where one can get as far in learning to discern what is and what is not true, or where one can grow as much in knowledge and being, so even though I can't know if some things being taught here are wrong (as I'm not so smart that I can be sure I would be right if I thought something is wrong or that I would notice)
Or even lets say worst case scenario would be that Laura was a very intelligent woman who had figured out that making a religion was better business than shrimp fishing and had made it all up (not that I believe that for a second, but just go with the thought for a moment) Then I would still have learned more about knowledge and being than in any other place I've found. I would still have gotten so much better at not obsessing, at keeping my sefimportance in a low gear, at understanding how to think in order to discern what is and what is not, I would still have learned how one can be as skinny as a model without being hungry and in a way that even makes one feel and think better, have more energy, and not even having to exercise to grow muscles...I could go on and on with the positive effects that it has had on my mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual growth (though sometimes the growth has not been without discomfort in the process) to have come across this place. And it is even free!!

So I'd say that even with the above ridiculous worst case example, I think I'd still be eternally grateful for what I've learned here and how it has changed me personally for the better. Even if I in the future would decide that this is not my place to be, that wouldn't take away what I've learned here, or all the precious moments of laughing and crying with people while reading their posts here. So I can't identify with people being resentful when they decide to leave. I've always felt grateful even in moments of doubt.

:rockon: Laura and group!
 
d3ck3r said:
luke wilson said:
Just walk away? This place holds to much pain for you.

That is exactly what I'm going to do if those people won't see what I tried to show them, so bans aren't needed. I'm simply giving them one last chance.

Giving them one last chance? one last chance for what? or to demonstrate what?
Self importance is a terrible thing that we must fight against, in your case is a priority.
 
Sure, there’s nothing wrong with that line of thought, we’re all going to have subjective viewpoints and misinformed opinions. The real test is in whether these are transformed or not when supplied with the necessary corrective data. Again, irony abounds.

I absolutely agree with this :) I think people here should never defend their view's against others.

First of all, I think subjectively alkhemist is very sensitive (i.e. can split quite easily) and above all needs some sort of emotional sort of re-assurance where he feels that his point of view has been seen and acknowledged by other people. This will stop an abrupt split where he will swing from one end to the other. He will access whether it has been seen and acknowledged by the way others reply to him. If they come across as abrupt and diametrically opposed to where his view is at, then he will take it as confrontational, especially if the language is dry, direct and sharp. I don't think the forum is equipped to deal with a person in such a personalised way especially if the person in question is in such a place as to be demanding and expect others to commit first before them.

I thought something similar about a Alkhemist, what I thought though was that someone somewhere said something which put Alkhemist into a defensive mind set, so anything that anyone said from thereon which agreed with the same point of view was perceived as hostile.

I don't know this for a fact however, you would have to look back over the thread and ask Alkhemist how s/he feels.

Archaea on the other hand is threatened by what appears as a somewhat over-riding consensus. To some people, this may appear as those expressing the consensus view have surrendered their individual capacity to think for themselves. This becomes even more threatening where one's view somehow differs from that of the consensus and there is a sort of divide where one is unable to reconcile or think their way through so that they can agree with the overriding views. At the bottom line though, I think sometimes its worth noting that some people on the fringes and those within the confines of the consensus are essentially the same, i.e. they want the same thing. That to me is why you see some people on the fringe totally disagree with certain aspects but still say this place has value for them. To me it appears that this problem has arisen because the person in question is in a place where they can't yet reconcile what they think against that which they think is in opposition, however, at a deeper level, they stick around because of an innate feeling of sameness regarding the over-riding almost ephemeral goals.

I think that maybe there are elements of the control system at work in this forum and I think that's why the C's brought up the subject of "covert antagonisms." I think they wouldn't bring it up if it was just because of people's egos, I think if it were just people's egos the C's would've just let the individual's work their own stuff out.

So what I'm saying is I think you're right about me. ;)

What I find hard to understand about the "group think" claim that has been levelled at us from time to time is that it seems to refute the possibility that a group of people can study information and individually draw the same conclusion that the information is accurate.

When that consensus conclusion is voiced by several such people, and is then contested by someone who has not studied that information, or has studied it and drawn different conclusions about its accuracy, those contesting it claim "group think".

I think some people accuse you of group-think because that's what they perceive is happening. i think you're right in that it may not be a logical perception, but I think invalidating their thoughts and feelings isn't helpful. I think this may cause emotional blocks in the other person, which I think would be an effect of the control system.

But right away you must give up the idea that you have a clue about anything: you don't.

Those are Laura's words from this very topic. Did she proposed to me that I should think on my own and verify her data? Or did she demanded my submission to her ignorance right away? And what happened when I refused? - I was instantly banned and after it came doubtful assumptions about me, that distorted everyone's perception of reality. And I'm not saying here, that there wasn't any truth at all in those distortions, but just look how people react to me now - they are no longer able to see the light in me, they see only darkness. It is a pathological white and black worldview and it is Laura's fruit - a rotten apple.
And I really don't care what you all think about me, I'm simply showing that many people around this forum are far from "thinking on their own" and that someone (Laura) is thinking for them. If the egotism of the predator inside me would be my concern, than I would never came to this forum with wish to tell you what I have discovered, because things that I have discovered are so extremely dark and terrifying, that people will eat me alive for sharing them. From Castaneda...

I think what Laura said here is pretty bad. I think this because it's an assumption, it might be true for all I know, but there is no way Laura could possibly know that d3ck3r hasn't done any work on himself, that's something only he could know, and even he might not know OSIT.

At any rate, I fully understand why this would PO d3ck3r off so much. If I felt like someone had made an assumption about me, and then banned me so I couldn't respond, it would probably make me angry. Can anyone else see that? Can anyone else see where d3ck3r is coming from?

Laura may have been right about what she said, but I think she took the wrong tact, or maybe even didn't use tact at all.

Per my understanding, that is basically how any organization/club/group works. People come together for working towards a common objective. When it becomes clear that someone in the group is either not willing or not able to work cooperatively with others, either that person leaves by himself or is shown the door. It does not mean the person is unworthy - it simply means that the person's and the group's aims and methods are not in harmony.

Or... the control system is taking control...

I wish to support them, because I know they are not black, but at the same time they are hurting at least some people in this network and my heart doesn't like that. My heart won't support people who are lying and hurting others.
I will now wait for answers and based on them will decide to either leave or stay.

Here's what I think, I think you need a strategy for dealing with the forum. I think it's a mistake for you to think that the people on this forum are any different to the people who aren't on this forum, I mean people who aren't on this forum always like to talk about how much they know as well. :P

Laura can be your petty tyrant, an impossible person in a position of power, in which case you need to humble your spirit. This means that you can't take up positions and defend them. The only reason you would be here is to help others in the miserable situation which the forum is in.

Be a warrior.
 
Back
Top Bottom