A Question for the Cs (and the rest of the forum)

[Wu Wei Wu]

Hi Wu Wei Wu. I spent most of my available time the last two days looking into some stuff so I could participate on your thread. This doesn't mean I have anything useful to offer, necessarily, so take this with whatever amount of salt seems conducive to good health. :)

I very much appreciate you putting the time and effort to research the topic. I'm sure we'll all benefit from your input.

Theurgy, itself, doesn't allow 'openness' as such. I assume you're aware of this, Wu?

I was not, and that had not been my experience there thus far. Free will has been venerated generally, and the idea of formalized rituals for attaining a closed future has not been presented at all. It is quite unlike any other magick group I am familiar with (which of course, thrive and necessitate limiting 'openness'). I have no knowledge of whether or not this will change though. The teachers noticeably split with contemporary western magick, do not hold hermeticism or qabbalism, or other like practices in high regard at all, but I cannot know whether this will change the approach of TDS towards rituals, as they could have been predisposed to such practices anyways. I will inquire.

His (Iamblichus') influential treatise "Theurgia, or On the Mysteries of Egypt" deals with a 'higher magic' which operates through the agency of the gods.

While I'll first comment that there is a notable possibility of "On the Mysteries of Egypt" not being written by his hand, it would probably have come from within his school anyways, or from his students/associates. I will read and gain insight into what history of Iamblichus we have.

IOW, one must simply concede the initial set of assumptions about Theurgy - to close your mind around them and just believe in order to proceed with the Teaching(s).

Hence we ought to concede the point as though possibly it might not be granted, not to assume it as a matter of uncertainty'.

Certainly a good marker to have, but I confess I interpreted the quote somewhat differently, as one would Gurdjieff's theories. One accepts it only as theory and not as true, until one can understand it themselves. Do not what you do not understand, or in this case accept as fact. But this may just be the Fourth Way interpretations in bleed through.

Also, are we to take Abammon's responses as the words of the school? That seems likely if Iamblichus (or his school) was trying to synthesize Greek and Egyptian Hermeticism.

both Porphyry and Steiner appear to have been mystified by, and severe critics of, Gnostic beliefs then current

I cannot comment on Steiner (although your mention of him has lead to some cursory research, more of which will have to be done later), but it is risky to equate and form of Theurgy with Porphyry particularily because of his dislike with the concept. I believe that is the reason he and Iamblichus split ways, and "On the Mysteries of Egypt" is Iamblichus's response to his concerns. The use of either of them is therefore not all that useful when considering Iamblichus the Theurgist.

Concluding that Iamblichus was critical of the Gnostics by invoking the example of the Chaldeaen Oracles is made further a stretch when considering that the oracles may very well have been made available to the Hellenes via 'Julian the Theurgist', although we have no way of knowing for sure if that really was the case.

I inferred that you were making the comparison that Iamblichus was critical of the early gnostics, which I do not think was the case, although your certainly right that Porphyry was not fond of them at all!

But then, I found G to be rather lucid and to the point as I indicated here.

I certainly agree. I started with Gurdjieff's "Beezlebub's Tales to His Grandson" and Ouspensky's "The Fourth Way". "In Search of the Miraculous" is definitely the clearest of the three, and Gurdjieff's lectures are usually quite clear.

If you want to sample this ancient social-unification-antithetical way of thinking, a good place to start is The Chaldæan Oracles I linked above. It illuminates how these ancients saw middle-included complements of both monism and pluralism.

I'm certainly going to read it. TDS mentions it as well, but I had put it to the side. I've read a few of the Gnostic texts, I'll have to bump this one up to the top of my list (also on Gnosis, ironically enough).

Simply put, these Isms all share a framework of some kind of hierarchy of beings, real or imagined, with a patriarchal head - just like western right wing christian fundamentalism. What I conclude from all this is that 'dialectical monism' as an archetype is just evil. It's like essence of naive and trivialized hive-drone Subject-Object thinking and will eventually reveal itself in its' pragma (acts) as always.

Its difficult to disagree with that, and I don't think I will. Especially considering we have numerous more examples then christian fundamentalism to call upon.

To your main question then, I'd answer 'no', the practice of Theurgy and that system is not a 4th way school due the only parallels I see are rather generic and simply include the typical admonitions to use self-discipline, act right, do some meditation, etc and if all goes right, you progress on said path to enlightenment.
If, however, you choose to ever ask some clear but tough questions to your teachers and find that their answers give you a feeling of a wolf baring its fangs, I'd get the hell outta there! But maybe that's just me.

Very few things seem to be random, and the students seem to share a remarkable homogeneity of results, so to speak. Certain other aspects have been revealed that show yet more similarity, but also other issues come up to challenge it accordingly. It appears to have opened its doors for a specific purpose and taken on a large number of students, but I do not know what it is.

Openness, the role of rituals, the nature of hierarchy within the system, the purpose of which it opened its doors, and the truthfulness of the history it purports are all necessary questions that must be asked. Which is always good! I will inquire, and as you said, if vicious creatures answer the call, then the nature of the group will be quite evident.

But this frustration with fragmentary teachings is common. In case of Fourth Way students I met, they usually complained about the lack of practicality and getting lost in the rich intellectual framework that it offers.

I'm a little late to this side of the conversation, but if anything I've found the Fourth Way to be extremely practical. Thats usually how I describe it when I'm asked what it is.

The (roughly 360 degree) mirror that can be utilized in this network is the only way to see things in ourselves that cannot be seen otherwise. Once we see these blind spots in ourselves often enough, we CAN take steps to overcome them with continued feedback / guidance from the network.

Are you speaking of the Group Mirror here, in the place of a master?

 

[SeekinTruth]

Are you speaking of the Group Mirror here, in the place of a master?

Yes, I am.

 

[ocean59]

Thanks for the invitation and I thoroughly agree with the replies since my last post.

Just a quick disclaimer that I don't claim to speak for anart here, but do wish to share my thoughts.

But the thing that mainly astonishes me in this discussion is anart's self-confidence. You don't seem to question your own understanding very much- at least in this thread.

It is interesting: rather then responding to what anart has said to you (which you have also stated that you agree with), instead you begin to question the style in which it was said. But, what is your response to what was actually said? Did you try (or consider) any of her suggestions?

If anart is wrong, then there is an entire network of people here ready and willing to point that out. If you think something she said was incorrect, please feel free to show it, though since you already said you agreed with her I'm guessing the issue is elsewhere...

You've been trained to spot certain things, which is very useful for this forum, but I've never seen anyone able to so quickly determine what is what and who is who within a few posts.

So...if you've never seen it, it isn't possible?

I'd love to have this kind of seeing transparently through beings whereever I go- but I haven't seen claims to such ability from experienced teacher's I've met so far that also look at more than just your written words.

And where has anart claimed this? I've not seen it.

We are using abstractions here. I use a certain kind of confidence here myself- even though I relativise claims and use maybe and perhaps more than "it is" and "cannot be any other way" or extend things to a global dimension even.

We are all at our own level of understanding. Perhaps it would be more productive to focus on the content of what is being communicated, rather than argue about the style?

I wouldn't make the claims to authority on anything here, even though I've pointed out the lack of research on non-western systems in both Academia and on this forum and Gurdjieff's strange behaviour patterns based on what admittedly few historical references we have such as the Harmonious Circle.

Has anart claimed authority on anything here? Where?

But I detect no sign of humility in anart's statements(I am fine with all others), which obviously triggers my programs, based on the experiences I've explained above.

Why is it so important for you that anart gives a sign of humility that you can detect? Have you read all (or even a fraction) of her posts on this forum?

Laura has alluded towards the ability to spot pathology within a few sentences. I assume this is based on the books on the reading list and experience gained through continued interaction with people here? I am especially curious about that one, considering that I have a feeling that that will make me understand anart's particular phrasing of words and behaviour better.

I think it is not only the books and the people here, but also applying that knowledge to one's everyday life. Practice makes perfect. And that work is not always easy imo - but most of it certainly seems to take place outside of this forum, in reality. This is a place to get excellent feedback about nearly everything - but as far as I can tell, the real Work is in applying that learned knowledge to all the areas outside of this forum, in addition to communications here.

I have a commissioned translation project to work on, so forgive me if I am not reacting in timely fashion in the upcoming months. I'll do my best to catch up on the huge amount of reading left here for me, in the meantime.

Good luck with your project, and hope to see you around.

Apologies for any thread hijacking.

 

[Laura]

But the thing that mainly astonishes me in this discussion is anart's self-confidence. You don't seem to question your own understanding very much- at least in this thread. You've been trained to spot certain things, which is very useful for this forum, but I've never seen anyone able to so quickly determine what is what and who is who within a few posts. I'd love to have this kind of seeing transparently through beings whereever I go- but I haven't seen claims to such ability from experienced teacher's I've met so far that also look at more than just your written words.

Being able to do this is actually a big part of moderator training/practice. We also endeavor to teach this on the forum because, as I've pointed out often enough, we have an inter-species predator that looks and talks pretty much like us and being able to spot them before we get entangled is sometimes crucial to survival. Sandra Brown has been working from this angle for many years as well and has written "How to Spot a Dangerous Man" and "Women Who Love Psychopaths" which give insight into those particular dynamics.

Here, however, it is more a necessity for dealing with ponerized normal people - that is, people who have been raised in our psychopathic environment and have become "psychopathic" in some ways due to that exposure.

The facts are that most of an indiviual's identity is acquired from their parents, family, peers and thus, their culture, and in a world where psychopaths rule, that culture, those ideas, those attitudes, perceptions, understandings, even "accepted wisdom" are totally corrupted and imposed on the population to make them weak and susceptible. More often than not, it is religions that transmit these norms.

We can change this, but it is hard. This is one of the main things that Gurdjieff saw and understood and experimented to try to change. In order to change anything about ourselves, we have to overcome barriers in our own minds. That isn't easy. Most everyone here has engaged in that type of work to one extent or another and it becomes very evident when a person has NOT done it because they bring in a lot of baggage from that pathological reality and actually think that they are thinking their own thoughts and have their own ideas when it is almost impossible to do so (as cognitive science has proven) without a group that can "read the signs" and infer what is really going on.

We are using abstractions here. I use a certain kind of confidence here myself- even though I relativise claims and use maybe and perhaps more than "it is" and "cannot be any other way" or extend things to a global dimension even. I wouldn't make the claims to authority on anything here, even though I've pointed out the lack of research on non-western systems in both Academia and on this forum and Gurdjieff's strange behaviour patterns based on what admittedly few historical references we have such as the Harmonious Circle. But I detect no sign of humility in anart's statements(I am fine with all others), which obviously triggers my programs, based on the experiences I've explained above. I hope you are right that you don't live in your own bubble like I expect everyone does, including me.

Yes, Anart triggers programs now and then because she generally calls it as she sees it and 9 times out of ten, she's right.

Laura has alluded towards the ability to spot pathology within a few sentences. I assume this is based on the books on the reading list and experience gained through continued interaction with people here? I am especially curious about that one, considering that I have a feeling that that will make me understand anart's particular phrasing of words and behaviour better.

Yes, once you have done some work on yourself, you will understand how utterly invaluable it is to have a person who can see through you and report to you what they are seeing simply and straightforwardly. Let's be clear about one thing that is 100% certain: YOU cannot think with the way you think. Period.

As it happens, I did once write a little bit about this for Facebook where many of us have been practicing our skills.

Blinking" and spotting Pathology on Facebook
by Laura Knight-Jadczyk on Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 3:48pm ·

Facebook is a whole new ballgame for me. I’ve noticed a number of people who just don’t like my Annie-Oakley-straight-shootin’ style. Most of them don’t have a clue about the crucible in which my thoughts and experiences have been purified. I started out just sharing my thoughts and ideas in an open and questioning way. I wrote something called “The Wave” which is still online (and also published in book form, 7 volumes) and still amazingly popular. When I began posting the chapters of this series, that’s when an amazing thing happened: people I didn’t even know started attacking me in the most vile and vicious manner. I received death threats. My children’s lives were threatened, my dog was poisoned, and a call went out in certain groups on the net that basically amounted to a contract for killing me. Yeah. Go figure.

At that time, now ten years ago, we had an online discussion group that was small and intimate and enjoyable. We were just people with a hobby indulging that hobby, sharing it with others, and living a normal life. When these attacks began, not only did we not know what we were dealing with, we did not know how to deal with it. Every single one of us was in the mode of "don't say anything, don't do anything, just be above it, be nice and shove it under the rug, if anybody believes that stuff, they aren't your friends" and so on.

We found out after awhile that this didn't work. In fact, we found out that it only brought on more abuse. Again and again we were seeing behavior that just totally baffled us. We could NOT believe what we were seeing and experiencing.

There were ringleaders of this gang of abusers: Vincent Bridges and Stormbear Williams and Jay Weidner. It got REALLY bad, even to the point that Bridges and Williams hacked into a computer of one of the group members, got her bank account and phone number account information, screwed up her finances, ran up a huge bill on her phone with "roaming internet" charges, and so forth. Bridges and gang filed false police reports against us, stole our material and published it with private names left in, embarrassing a number of people, sent threats, hacked our websites, kept money belonging to group members that had been charged on their credit cards, and on and on. All this has been chronicled in the series of articles we wrote about our experience with Bridges and Williams. It's all published in detail with accompanying documentation where needed.

Ark and I both became very ill with life-threatening infections. It was really serious and we knew that we had to make a change. Obviously, that was the intention of the attackers: they wanted us to disappear, to stop writing about the things we were writing about. But I’m just not the person that you want to try to intimidate. So, the change that we decided to make was to do research, to learn everything we could about this sort of behavior.

Many in the cass/QFS discussion group just wanted to close their eyes and forget about it. NOBODY likes to experience "bad feelings." We are taught from birth that they are "bad" and you should not feel them and if you do, something is wrong with you. So, I more or less started on my own, digging into the literature. As I learned things, I shared with the group. After awhile, they began to get interested because they could see that there was a lot more to this than met the eye. In fact, they began to catch glimpses of situations from their own lives. The research then became more interesting.

Of course, there were people in the group then that never, ever, could deal with it because they were so terrified of a bad feeling that they had to project such things on someone else and usually, I was the one. We learned a lot about psychopathology not only from research, but from interactions with the group.

Then, along came Ponerology and it was like the lightbulb went on. Everything that Lobaczewski had described as clues to what is inside the pathological individual, we had seen and experienced with different individuals either in our lives or online. Sometimes more than once. Not only that, but we had seen how totally formulaic it was. Person says this, and if you say that, person will say this, but if you say something else, person will say that. It really was like watching machines set to run "if-then protocols."

We then realized that this was what Gurdjieff also talked about. Yes, we had read it long before, but as far as "working with people, groups, students" etc, we hadn't paid a whole lot of attention to those comments he made. We now realized how unbelievably valuable - pure gold - that material was. And we found tons of supporting material in the writings of other psychologists and social scientists.

So, after a few years we decided to try a public forum again. We already knew from about 6 years of daily experience, how "machines" worked and so we had a good idea what to expect. And, of course, the instant the forum opened, the Bridges - Williams gang and cohorts and other people like them, came along to disrupt and destroy. We could see we had our hands full. And we ALL needed practice dealing with these types "face to face" (at least in cyberspace - if you can't do it here, how can you do it in real life?) We all had the tendency to want to "be nice, say nice things, don't make waves, don't be confrontational" and that had to stop. I should note that such individuals - and I include myself here - generally tend to be the ones that get taken advantage of by predators all their lives. We needed to learn how NOT to be prey, how NOT to be victims, and to tell predators "no" and mean it.

Most people are not familiar with the work of Gurdjieff and ancient mystics that sought to create understanding among human beings. They don’t understand the idea that objective knowledge exists and can be a goal, and that if it is objective, that means it is understood by everyone who has achieved it in the same way. If ten people look at a cake, taste the cake, know the ingredients of the cake, they can ALL say it is a chocolate cake. The same is true about many things, post-modernism be damned.

And so, when a group has been working on research for a very long time, doing experimentation, getting results, and all are seeing the same thing and tend to respond to particular stimuli the same way, the handiest thing that psychopaths can throw at them is the accusation of “cult.” Because, of course, the very idea that human beings might actually start to really understand one another, to get over the Babel syndrome, scares psychopaths to death. Their stock in trade is “divide and conquer.” They’ve got the whole human race at each other’s throats and if we don’t figure it out fast and get over it, we are toast.

Karl von Eckartshausen wrote:

Words are means by which Human Beings communicate and we call it a language. In order to communicate, you have to have an understanding of the words you use and that is where the problem arises.

The meanings of most of the words we use were learned in context with other words, and we assume from this that we know the meaning of the word. When you do this, and your understanding of a word is the same as its real meaning, no problem arises, However, when what you assume the meaning of a word is does NOT agree with the true meaning of the word, then misunderstanding is the result.

It is most rewarding to understand the words; by understanding, the true meaning of the word is meant. The best sources for obtaining this information are dictionaries, encyclopedias and dictionaries in OTHER languages."

What mystic Karl von Eckartshausen wrote above would have been true in his day and time and even 60 or so years ago in our own time. However, it is no longer true. As the hero, V, in the movie V For Vendetta”said:

Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

Later in the movie, the character Valerie says in a flashback:

I remember how the meaning of words began to change. How unfamiliar words like "collateral" and "rendition" became frightening, while things like Norsefire and the Articles of Allegiance became powerful. I remember how "different" became dangerous. I still don't understand it, why they hate us so much.

Anyone familiar with George Orwell’s 1984 knows that he wrote about the idea that controlling a people’s definition of words, controlling the meanings that those words evoke in the minds of the general public, is integral to achieving actual thought control of the populace.

A forum member wrote a piece for SOTT last year of which the following is a short excerpt:

A close examination of the what is happening in the present time – even including the field of metaphysics and paranormal research - demonstrates a rather rapid and seemingly deliberate twisting and perverting of word meanings in the public consciousness. This is accomplished by altering, the very definitions of key words in our minds via the media and this is then reflected in the dictionaries we turn to when we wish to clarify terms that seem ambiguous or "off" when we hear them used by pundits in the corporate media.

Although a gradual alteration in spelling, pronunciation and meanings of words does occur naturally in any language – a process known as linguistic drift - it does not normally happen as rapidly as can be observed today. The speed with which this is occurring strongly suggests intent to control meanings and thereby, thought.

In the past 20 years, many words dealing with politically, sociologically and spiritually loaded concepts – including supernatural communication techniques - have been re-defined by media usage to convey quite different ideas from the original. Tertiary definitions have moved up rapidly in the dictionary’s lists of definitions, becoming secondary, even primary, and some of the original, primary definitions have vanished completely! For many words, only the "revised" definitions remain.

Let's take an example: the word "cult." You would certainly not expect such a word to be applied to a group that promotes the scientific examination of ideas and beliefs, would you?

Of course not!

But it is here that we discover an interesting thing: You see, the definition of the word "cult" is not precisely the same now as it was as recently as 30 years ago or even 10 years ago! The process of redefinition of the word “cult” is currently underway and the definition that we all know well is rapidly fading on the page. The word “cult” has begun to take on meanings that have political implications! "A group with a shared central belief that is far enough removed from the mainstream religious, moral or behavioral norms, within a society, as to set it apart therefrom." This easily leads to the perception that anyone or anything "different" from what is prescribed to be politically correct, must not only be wrong, but must be labeled as such – and the word “cult” is being adjusted for that purpose.

It is a certainty that Giordano Bruno, Galileo, and Copernicus had a "shared central belief" that the earth revolved around the sun, and this idea was far removed from the mainstream religious, moral or behavioral norms of the society that was dominated by the Catholic Church. Giordano was not accused of belonging to a “cult,” instead he was accused of being a heretic and was burned at the stake. Now, of course, we know that he was right all along.

Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples also had a "shared central belief" that was far removed from the "mainstream religious, moral, and even behavioral norms" of the society of their time. Jesus was accused of being possessed by Beelzebul because he performed exorcisms.

In social-scientific analyses, accusations such as “cult” or “heretic” or “possessed by demons” can be described as negative labels, while “good” titles of prominence (saint, statesman, holy) can be identified as positive labels.

Both negative and positive labels are social weapons whose purpose is to identify and control behavior that is outside the established range of what is called normal. Of course, one is entitled to ask just WHO establishes what is considered normal, how and why?

On our forum, we have a clearly stated Mission which is described in the forum guidelines. At the end, these guidelines state the following:

We the moderators reserve the right to do anything and everything we see fit to ensure a friendly comfortable environment for our guests; that includes deleting you and all of your posts if you break any of these rules or act like a psychological deviant at any time past present or future. Oh yeah people, I said future, Tom Cruise has nothin' on us.

Now, that is stated rather humorously, but there IS a history behind it.The fact is, we, the creators of our forum, that is, Ark and myself, have had many, many years of interacting with people in a didactic setting, quite effectively, I should add. I also have many years experience as a hypnotherapist and researcher, mother of five children who have, I should add, turned out very well (the proof and the pudding and all that). I have also conducted an experiment in superluminal communication that has produced extremely interesting results (interesting enough to bring down the ire of the psychopaths on my head!). Ark has been a student of Gurdjieffian ideas for many, many years, as have I. We worked on ourselves separately, and then together, effecting dramatic changes in our personal lives and our expanded reality. We then began sharing the results of our work on the net. This attracted people and we began to help them connect with each other and work on themselves in the same ways that we found gave rapid results. For years, this was done in private in an email discussion group. This work was so threatening to some that we have been under constant attack for all this time and, apparently, even before, if the Cs are to be credited.

The study of psycho-linguistics - how words - spoken and written - reveal a person's inner landscape, is a particular project that QFS has worked on for some time. Our forum is actually an experiment in being able to read people accurately, figure out what they need so they can be helped even via an internet/written communication, and, of course, continuing to protect them from predators by recognizing and removing them.

As Sandra Brown reiterates, you can't fix Cluster B personality disorders, so we don't spend any time on that. We get them out of our forum so those who want to work can do so in peace and safety. It's hard enough without hecklers.

As Hervey Cleckley points out, psychopaths (and other Cluster Bs) wear a mask of sanity, but we are working on being able to detect them faster and better. And we do have certified professionals onboard in interactive and advisory capacities, so it's not just a bunch of amateurs with wild ideas here. The moderators on our forum have trained in this "school."

Much of Gurdjieff's work has amazing similarities to some of the latest cognitive science and represents a possible nexus between the material and the mystical.

We do NOT use telepathy to "diagnose" anyone. In fact, we don't diagnose: we assess and give our opinions and frame our words and actions based on those assessments. So far, based on the history of this forum, we bat them out of the park almost every time. In short, the historical track record, preserved on this forum for anyone who has the time to find and read the threads, is our primary data that our method of studying "word gestures", semantics, etc, is a viable diagnostic tool. And it is also a valuable healing modality.

Because I am a woman, many people do not take me seriously at all. They react emotionally to that fact, and feel that they must "smash" me or "put me in my place" or somehow reduce me to tears to prove that they are so "manly" and superior. This is a common attitude of psychopathology and has been growing apace in our culture for thousands of years.

As I recently wrote to someone else, sometimes I feel like a "fast gun" who has to be constantly challenged by every other fast gun who comes into town. And even moreso because, shudder!, women most definitely must NOT be fast guns!

As I noted then, I am not fast because I practiced to engage in any kind of contest with anyone... I am fast because I have been practicing on sacred cows that have threatened me and others and what I really need is not to have to defend my fastness, but some help with those damn cows!

Which brings me to Annie Oakley who became such a fantastic shot because her father was dead and feeding the family depended on her aim and efficiency. Bullets were scarce, and if she missed - her family went hungry. She was highly motivated to be both fast and accurate - out of her "female nurturing" orientation! If it had been just for the sake of competition, she might not have been so motivated because competition is not generally part of the female archetype. Cooperation for the survival of others is, however.

And that's what drives me.

The bottom line question I always test everything by is: Do I trust this enough to recommend it to my beloved children? If it doesn't pass that test, you can bet that I won't. And you can also bet that what is accepted or rejected is tested the same way. Is it the TRUEST thing I can find to give my children?

Because, after all, I do expect to be gone from this planet some day and they must carry on. Let me give them the best I can, and let me work as hard as I can so that this best IS the best. 

 

[Voyageur]

[quote author=Laura ]
Yes, Anart triggers programs now and then because she generally calls it as she sees it and 9 times out of ten, she's right.
[/quote]

Also, when discussing lack of "humility", think you would need to read many many posts of anart's before coming to conclusions on this, and then they would only be subjective conclusions. As for the ability to detect, looking at the roots of matters, yes, think this might be helped when one considers the 336,214 Posts in 24,136 Topics by 4,016 Members (to date) being monitored and interacted with here - trends are trends and often say a lot, imo.

Good luck also with the translation project.

 

[Medhavi]

It is interesting: rather then responding to what anart has said to you (which you have also stated that you agree with), instead you begin to question the style in which it was said. But, what is your response to what was actually said? Did you try (or consider) any of her suggestions?

If anart is wrong, then there is an entire network of people here ready and willing to point that out. If you think something she said was incorrect, please feel free to show it, though since you already said you agreed with her I'm guessing the issue is elsewhere...

I have responded to what she pointed out about me, which I agree with. There’s no need to enumerate the cases where I’ve projected something onto others or assumed things without being open-minded, as they have been clear to myself when going back over my own posts again and again. How I’ve taken up the suggestions is stated at the end of my last long reply.

I don’t disagree with the content, with one exception. What I was wondering about was the style indeed.

Questioning my own perception, I asked two colleagues(who are not familiar with the C’s) to take a look at these threads in question here. As with myself, they pointed out that, in general, the replies were understandable except for anart’s style which came across(translated quotes) as “wide-sweeping and somewhat aggressive”. So, that’s a sample from total outsiders. When you're unfamiliar with the “triggering programs" and detecting pathological speech, this obviously makes no sense.

So I pondered about her style and my reactions. As this is part of my research, and as has been pointed out before about the nature of “soft sciences” where you are always part of the equation, I am certainly involved in my work on an emotional level too.

But not to such an extent that I can’t see beyond myself, otherwise I wouldn’t have admitted my own inadequacies and even agreed with everyone, including anart.

But I wouldn’t dare speak for the whole of Asia or even East Asia, where I am working, even though I spent considerable time speaking and practicing with actual people and read the Source works in their languages. Without this ability, I question if any statement issued in that direction can be anything but generalizing and tainted by given frameworks and emotional involvement, too.

Obyvatel’s milk analogy was good to explain where you’re coming from. But there are certain problems involved with projecting that analogy onto huge areas that are, as I’ve never seen Caucasian people there, largely unknown, and therefore, mostly unexistent in Western imagination. Wielding “objectivity” and “Facts” as the standard is good in the hard sciences, even though there have been scandals/frauds there time and again. In the “soft sciences”, which are under question here, you have to prove where you stand in this matter. I’ve told you of my involvement in my own matters and that I’ve learnt to speak your languages and am now in the process of painfully removing misunderstandings that I’ve projected onto you. But I don’t think it is an unfounded assumption that anart, or even the large majority on this forum, has not done similar work in the other direction discussed.

So yes, I would not belittle cultural misunderstandings. It is not theory, but also application. It is also getting down in the dirt and failing and failing again before getting up again. If you don’t learn the language of the people you are investigating, you have to rely on facts presented through Western sources which may or may not be facts as they’re culturally biased as we all are in the beginning, as Laura pointed out in the Wave with the “replacing dictionary entries” allegory. They also usually employ "stay out of it and only use conceptual deduction and Western Logic to maintain 'objectivity'" as is still strangely taught in British Anthropology, with some rare exceptions. Those who stopped applying French social theories to practical paths of consciousness are usually from non-academic or New Age type origin. So the overall evidence stands on pretty shaky foundation; not enough to work with the "gist" of things.
By “language of the people”, I don’t just mean the scriptural and vernacular languages of communication. I also mean understanding and applying the terms they use. That takes a lifetime, and you may not succeed.

As I am in the process of understanding your terms to avoid embarrassing situations as this in the future, I can also ask if YOU have done these steps in the other direction.
Obyvatel’s example of his own involvement and the members on this forum representing Asia may not be sufficient, because through my own experience, being native does not guarantee anything in research. You just might miss the guy next door. To add to this, within East Asia at least, understanding of the more ancient paths is less than modern European understanding of medieval German texts on Alchemy. Which means none. If you show a modern Běidà/Táidà University level educated Chinese, who has been involved with internal arts, a scripture from Daoist alchemical traditions, they’ll often not even be able to decipher one sentence- there’s few left after the Cultural revolution(wasn’t that different before, to be fair) that can elucidate these matters. So it takes concerted efforts of many generations of people who have been trained in both directions before we can arrive at a good hypothesis even. And hypothesis does not theory make. Which might or might not be fact.

It is often mentioned that, broadly speaking, there is left hemisphere training to be found here and right hemisphere ones in the East. Well, no, I wish it was this easy, Buddy. It is not sitting down, forgetting your thoughts and chanting OM. The equivalence of the medieval alchemical traditions in the West demand the same rigorous training in both hemispheres and detecting such things as green language/twilight language within Prakrit/Classical Sanskrit/Classical Chinese for example. As Fulcanelli said, you can’t learn this from a book. I just have the feeling that this general cliché might be somewhat right in its essence because the experiential part has been explored more in the “East”. If you discount “hidden history in the West”, that is, which is only now re-emerging, partly thanks to you. But it is foolish to speak for all from even the most educated position. I don’t make a clown of myself by making huge claims about those I meet in my research, and what I expect from you when I speak about humility is also a subtle meaning that you’ve probably not caught yet: It is also humility to not exclude possibilities in your assumptions. You generally do that, and anart does that too, but not in the statement I will quote again below. As you can see, I’m taking back my statements about you because I felt that you were right about me. Not just because I deducted it. But because I could feel it.

I am not oblivious to the notion of unified understanding within esoteric circles that you are probably working towards. From that position, it is easy to point out what is different in others. Through awareness, you pick out what is pathological in my own statements. Alright, that works with me, since I want to remain a learner.

But, using the “Mahasiddha” allusion that was brought up before, it was asked why making psychopathology +as in the terms published in recent psychological books+ public seemingly wasn’t part of their mission and realization. Similarly, I might ask how different areas of expertise are not limited to their own domain of understanding and may have their own merits? If the understanding of “top guys” in the “East” does not include formulated systems of psychopathology, they can’t make uneducated statements about that and have to acknowledge their limitations. Similarly, has it struck you that the Work here has its own obvious merits but may be limited in application in terms of judging alien domains, which may or may not automatically included in that understanding arrived at?

In reply to

Has anart claimed authority on anything here? Where?

Quote with bold letters indicating strangely factual speech and cursive letters containing my initial thoughts:

Quote from: anart in cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25079.90.html
I think Gurdjieff made it quite clear that 'kindabuffer' is 'kundalini' and that it is the energy that keeps man trapped in illusion(sez who, except for G.?). It is the source of the living dream in which man is trapped. I also think there is a lot of evidence(which evidence within the respective traditions?) to indicate that this is why so many eastern traditions(wasn't aware that there were 'so many'; pretty rare if you ask me, especially before the 19th century) and new age traditions(thrown into the same heap?) focus on 'raising' or 'utilizing' kundalini energy(betrays Western conditioning because I never saw these 'raising and utilizing' efforts in source texts, nor has this been communicated to me by teachers. However, since Gopi Krishna, this has been the main thing in New Age utilisation, focusing on visualisation and throwing around terminology like ida and pingala and sushumna etc.) - it is a trap for the soul(strange, considering there's no factual definition of what the soul is anywhere; how do you establish its relation to a type of energy then?), and the strengthening of the dream(for whom? The modern interpretation of it or the energy itself, that you repeatedly refer to?) - the opposite of awakening. These traditions are all corrupted and their main purpose, for quite some time now, is to keep man trapped more deeply in his illusion - sheep believing they are magicians(Situation always looked grim on the whole globe. But how is this not generalising?). I think this is also why it is often represented as serpent energy(very liberal with taking english translations from non-english sources and then aligning them with the transcripts? How is this not a leap to a conclusion?).
Quote from: anart on the same page
Because it is a trap, as are many (if not all) eastern traditions(here you are less dogmatic by leaving open possibilities, which you, however, immediately relativise to a feeling that it may very well include all of them. Does that sound scientific or objective? I suppose there is no such thing as imitation groups in "the East"). It can be no other way, Medhavi, at this point in the history of 3D STS planet earth.(leaving no possibility open. How is this not anticipation and close-mindedness?)

Previously, I explained in the Long Hair thread how this whole chain of thought can be taken apart, even just using knowledge of Classical Sanskrit and how it related to Proto Sanskrit(where the whole Serpent energy/Power as popularized by a British judge in G.’s time falls apart), where Gurdjieff’s limitations become clear because he definitely did not interact with living traditions, nor did he read or understand the source languages, nor did he even have time in his travels to receive lengthy training.

However, we have certain western contemporaries of his time(David-Neel, Burton) who did lengthy preparation in the written and spoken languages and spent their life in South and East Asia, and from their troubles encountered before and after World War I(how can Gurdjieff educate himself in a Tibetan Monastery if the British allied with them and had a special hatred of Russian agents? Nevermind how he can walk in and safely determine what practise leads where?), we can be safe to question Gurdjieff’s competency in that direction, similar to Avalon’s Darkness over Tibet case, where it is clear he used the whole setup to confer esoteric meanings without necessarily having been “there”. Which is alright but does not fact make. Half a century after G’s death, it still strikes me as strange how so few (even in Academica, as evidenced by recent publications) are questioning what exactly a “Kundalini Awakening“ or even a "preliminary Kundalini Awakening" is, when you can compare that to Source texts(which don’t get translated because there is no interest in things that are not empty rituals, a favourite of scholars, as they don’t require involvement) that clearly outline the stages and requirements for something that used to not even be called Kundalini, that would make New Age adaptions look ridiculous, which it is.


It is easy to see how this indeed can be made into a trap for the soul, if adapted by New Age sources or even modern India. But what has that to do with the energy itself and how it might be utilized? Sexual energy is represented by serpents in your dreams(for most people). That is the closest hypothesis you can make. Still doesn’t have allow huge leaps of assumptions.

Since this was part of Beelzebub, I acknowledged that he was conferring subtle meanings through metaphor so that I could not turn this into an academic debate, where he would look comical. But then I have to trust in Gurdjieff’s overall understanding of the all matters involved based on him being right in the other 97%. Well, you yourself said that you don’t take C’s and G’s word as literal fact, but work with hypotheses that have a good chance of being true.

How does using a quote from a esoteric metaphor book from someone who can be verified to not have had enough connection(Gurdjieff practice of Yoga in his youth isn’t exactly a good position of authority) to make authoritative claims(which no-one can make even now), then transposing the implications of that quote onto the whole of Asia, and then finishing this off with “it can be no other way” on the whole Earth *not* sound like a generalization and exclusion of possibilities? English is a foreign language for me and I only had some years to learn it, so I am open to the possibility that my readings into these statements is totally off, but I can’t be living in some sort of parallel universe, where the naked emperor appears fully clothed? If you go by the gist of “things as they are”, you still can’t make statements like that without good proof and letting the people that originated such things(if they have) speak for themselves.

Why is it so important for you that anart gives a sign of humility that you can detect? Have you read all (or even a fraction) of her posts on this forum?

I haven’t even read a fraction of her posts on this forum, that’s why I was careful about not just dismissing her input. I am not in position to judge herself; I don’t know her. But has she done a fraction of the work in the direction of the topics discussed? Not just research Western things, to turn the table around?
I admit my own incompetency in your areas of thought. But I don’t see reciprocality in this particular case. So if you ask me if my cup is full. Yes, it is. And it is hard work to bend myself into two directions to assess matters, as you say, objectively. Emptying your cup is demanded from many sects. But it usually gets you into trouble. If rigidity in thought, through the readings and apparent observation in reality can be the case for me and everyone else, is this not possible for you? The "group mirror" certainly helps with the development of all individuals involved, but it doesn't automatically yield knowledge in areas outside of the conceptual framework here.

This is in reply to

Perhaps it would be more productive to focus on the content of what is being communicated, rather than argue about the style?

With everything else, I agree in content and the style is understandable for me upon more reflection. I am repetitive here, but I hope it clarifies where I think the issue is for me. I brought myself into the equation and you can rightly point out my subjectivity. But it seems strange if there's no leeway for subjectivity involved when making statements such as anart's above. Which was the origin of these types of discussions. Using esoteric metaphor and examples used by Gurdjieff to make his framework clear to Westerners as a factual representation of how things are outside of his framework, with no academic backup and resorting to saying I am intellectually nitpicking these issues when I honestly think this point is pretty clear and an issue if we continually refer to Gurdjieff's "objective" understanding. If his western understandings include the Sun being icy and circumcision being great, I wonder about the veracity of the stuff he couldn't have trained in, yet made "quite clear" statements about.

So...if you've never seen it, it isn't possible?

I’ve seen it before, but in a different context. I was just surprised and at first, irritated, to see it here. But I believe I understand its use for triggering programs through saying what is on the mind directly. If something enters her awareness, if she spots something, she points it out. But I believe I can also point something out.

And where has anart claimed this? I've not seen it.

You assume that people are misunderstanding you when they are not. You have no idea how transparent you are.

I actually have an idea of how transparent my own involvement is. Not a full understanding, but an inkling of an understanding. That allowed me to change my stance. But you are very certain in the quote about the Beelzebub reference, with no possibility allowed that you are also not somewhat transparent to me through these words, because I’ve also seen that pattern before in my area of research. It does not take esoteric understanding to see opinions (which it, in this case, is. It certainly is not a hard science fact), if you come from the areas discussed. The same way you spot errors in my thinking.
I am not interested in my self-importance as much as you think I am. I am aware of the defamations and claims against the so-called “Cult” of the C’s here. You give them fodder through such absolutist (“there can be no other way”, avoidance of relativist terms) claims, which fall apart through academic inquiry. If one retreats to esoteric understanding, then this can be interpreted as sectarian behavior. And I don’t think you want to appear as that to the public. So which way can you take?
I can feel that you all have the best of intentions. I have done enough practice in my areas to not fall into the trap of riding on my glory carpet. I am here to work on myself, once I get this issue out of the way. I just want to see if YOU are also able to question your own understanding, especially with the odds at hand here.

If I see a concrete block that asks me to not be a concrete block, I can do that. But if someone makes extraordinary claims, I require extraordinary evidence, which you can hardly bring up in this direction, because it is largely outside the Western conceptual framework.
If I could resolve this issue through reading books and talking to some people, I would gladly say whether or not Gurdjieff was right and if it can be used as an argument for anything. But as it stands, I can't. So I am mystified by anart's Self-confidence in these matters.
I've never met a researcher and/or practitioner in the field that confidently asserted was is and is not in that direction; from my observation, the wiser they are, the less they attempt to make factual statements. I assume that comes with no anticipation and the avoidance of unfounded assumptions.

As such, I don’t need more than the ability to show openness. I perceive that as coming from everyone except for Anart.
I hope this is just some trivial misunderstanding. But I can’t work with “this is all subjective opinion” or “this is projection” or “this is deflection”, when you don’t prove your assertions in detail. You can do that with the perceptions about me, which are likely right. But how about these general statements I quoted above? I assume you sit in France. How does that give you access to knowing what an energy type is or is not on the other side of the world? I am not aware of sound academic inquiries into that direction except for some proceedings in Mainland China since the 70’s, which are not available in English. So where are you pulling these assertions from, except for a line in Beelzebub?
Similar to how it is expected here to admit your own incompetency and lying to the Self in addition to grasping the whole framework operated from through an extensive amount of reading before you can properly participate, I trust you see the same as necessary for the “other direction”?

Also, when discussing lack of "humility", think you would need to read many many posts of anart's before coming to conclusions on this, and then they would only be subjective conclusions.

Sure, what about the other way around? In the last thread, I was asked repeatedly to keep concise, and I apologise for these large bulks of text. But complex issues are never resolved through posting a few lines that promote linear deduction, which lead to even more misunderstandings, which lead to subjective conclusions. As I am making them myself, it would be strange if anart exluded herself from that possibility herself. If it was just the scratching of my own self-importance and failure to understand the First Initation presented by de Salzmann, that would be no problem. But I think the things I've pointed out in the quote above are still somewhat valid beyond my personal perspective.
----

Thanks for the clarification, Laura. And also for your time, seeing as you must be really busy, as everyone else here.

Good luck with your project, and hope to see you around.

Good luck also with the translation project.

Thanks a lot!

 

[anart]

Medhavi, please re-read Laura's post. You seemed to have entirely missed her point. Your rather obsessive projections onto me are not true. Period. In fact, they are rather worrisome because you are projecting and nitpicking in order to be 'right' - which is futile since you are so far off-base. Your issues with me are a reflection of yourself and your own issues and blind spots - and the obsessive flavor of your thinking regarding me is proof of that. You are making enormous assumptions that don't even approach the truth, so please just stop and at least try to question your own thinking, because it is truly flawed. If you cannot, then perhaps another forum would be more beneficial for you.

 

[Medhavi]

I do not think it is obsession having to repeat my same direct questions to you when you evade them and brush them off as irrelevant.
When I am answering the personal questions directed at me, I also expect you to be open about yourself. Have you gone beyond detecting psychological patterns and researching within a Western framework alone? What is your experiential and conceptual knowledge in the areas discussed for you to be able to make factual assertions pointed out in the quote above? Have you gotten "down in the dirt" to look whether or not these hypotheses are true or not? If I and others in my area can't pretend to be thoroughly knowledgeable, where are you pulling authority from?

I am not trying to be right. I do not want to waste anyone's time with worthless intellectual debates when there are pressing issues at hand. But I want to see where you confidence in such statements comes from, specifically when talking about areas outside of your expertise. Essentially, I am looking for your openess and flexibility in research. Others here are showing that I think, which gives me no reason to leave this forum. I don't think I am "far off-base" in the specific quote above at all. I also have pressing matters to attend to like everyone here, so would you please reply to my questions given above?

 

[Iron]

For the record Medhavi, its not just Anart that is seeing that you are projecting and missing the point.
Laura has stated so, and others posters too.
Its just that Anart has a very direct way of pointing it, and because of her way of communicating you are taking issue with her words, since you cannot debate with her hard facts.

Laura's post, did you truly read it? Do you understand the process of ponerization that Laura was aluding to?
Do you understand that the east is no longer a "holy land of learning"? Neither is the west?

Another thing Medhavi, if you throw Objectivity out of the window when researching "soft sciences" all you have is your subjective opinion. how can you be sure its true?

 

[anart]

I do not think it is obsession having to repeat my same direct questions to you when you evade them and brush them off as irrelevant.

Yes, it is obsession - or pathological persistence.

Have you gone beyond detecting psychological patterns and researching within a Western framework alone?

Yes.

What is your experiential and conceptual knowledge in the areas discussed for you to be able to make factual assertions pointed out in the quote above?

Read my 13,949 posts on this forum to get a clue on that.

Have you gotten "down in the dirt" to look whether or not these hypotheses are true or not?

For a longer period of time than you have occupied your current physical body.

If I and others in my area can't pretend to be thoroughly knowledgeable, where are you pulling authority from?

Your self-importance is astounding. I'm not pretending anything, I am merely pointing out the obvious in an attempt to help a very young man who has zero appreciation for what is standing right in front of him, and, quite frankly, it is becoming quite clear that it is a waste of my time and energy.

I am not trying to be right.

That is ALL you are doing - and you're failing miserably.

I do not want to waste anyone's time with worthless intellectual debates when there are pressing issues at hand.

Then why are you wasting everyone's time with worthless intellectual debates when there are pressing issues at hand?

But I want to see where you confidence in such statements comes from, specifically when talking about areas outside of your expertise.

You have zero clue about my expertise. Read all 13,949 of my posts before you behave like a spoiled child not getting his way. Apologies, but you really are acting out in a manner that should deeply embarrass you.

Essentially, I am looking for your openess and flexibility in research.

No, you're trying to get into a pissing contest because your self-importance has been scratched and it's quite the dramatic display on your part. My work stands on its own and I certainly don't need to be vetted by you. Your self-importance is monumental. Do you behave this way in real life? If so, what are the results? I would imagine that there are very few people who hold you in high-esteem.

Others here are showing that I think, which gives me no reason to leave this forum.

You seem to be missing the point that that decision may not be up to you. Re-read the forum guidelines - in their entirety.

I don't think I am "far off-base" in the specific quote above at all.

That's because you don't think - not really - not objectively. You run programs fueled by the fear of being wrong and being found out and it is really getting quite tiresome to read them.

 

[EmeraldHope]

I do not think it is obsession having to repeat my same direct questions to you when you evade them and brush them off as irrelevant.

Perhaps Anart and others can see that they are irrelevant, while at the current moment you cannot?

When I am answering the personal questions directed at me, I also expect you to be open about yourself. Have you gone beyond detecting psychological patterns and researching within a Western framework alone? What is your experiential and conceptual knowledge in the areas discussed for you to be able to make factual assertions pointed out in the quote above? Have you gotten "down in the dirt" to look whether or not these hypotheses are true or not? If I and others in my area can't pretend to be thoroughly knowledgeable, where are you pulling authority from?

There are truths that are universal, Medhavi, as well as formulaic. Once one knows the program, all one has to do it "plug it in . Anart's proof is in the pudding, although you cannot see it just yet.

I do not want to waste anyone's time with worthless intellectual debates when there are pressing issues at hand. But I want to see where you confidence in such statements comes from, specifically when talking about areas outside of your expertise. Essentially, I am looking for your openess and flexibility in research. Others here are showing that I think, which gives me no reason to leave this forum. I don't think I am "far off-base" in the specific quote above at all. I also have pressing matters to attend to like everyone here, so would you please reply to my questions given above?

Again, why are you so worried about Anart personally, when it really has little to do with anything? Truths and dynamics that are verifiable above a personal level do not need a "personal" story to go along with pointing them out. It is up to you to get up to speed with the knowledge here so that you can see the same things.

For example:

A. Water will freeze at 32 degrees f.

B. I found out that water will freeze at 32 degrees f, but I know some other people think that it is possible to get it to freeze under other conditions, and even say they can make it freeze at 100 degrees f. I am open to other possibilities, but for now, my working hypothesis is that 32 degrees is factual, as these others have failed to prove their math. There may very well be math that I am not aware of yet that can alter this observation, although it does not seem probable currently, and statistically seems improbable. I have studied math in Asia, the West, and in Russia, and I am wary of people who have only studied math in the West.

 

[Laura]

I don’t disagree with the content, with one exception. What I was wondering about was the style indeed.

Questioning my own perception, I asked two colleagues(who are not familiar with the C’s) to take a look at these threads in question here. As with myself, they pointed out that, in general, the replies were understandable except for anart’s style which came across(translated quotes) as “wide-sweeping and somewhat aggressive”. So, that’s a sample from total outsiders. When you're unfamiliar with the “triggering programs" and detecting pathological speech, this obviously makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense in the total context. As noted, we have experienced attack on this forum to a level probably unknown in internet history. There is a usual way that those attacks begin. You started off on that very foot. The question of the mods then becomes: okay, this person is NOT being sincere. Is it because s/he has a definite negative agenda, or is it simply because s/he has acquired habits from the environment/upbringing that are in evidence here?

We could spend weeks dancing around to make that determination - and sometimes we do - or it can be hastened to revelation by exactly what Anart has done. A decent person will back up and say, whoah! I guess I'm not communicating very well here... let's try again. A pathological person will react in one of several ways that the mods (and most forum members) know very well.

You just lucked out and got the fast track, I guess.

 

[ana]

I am aware of the defamations and claims against the so-called “Cult” of the C’s here. You give them fodder through such absolutist (“there can be no other way”, avoidance of relativist terms) claims, which fall apart through academic inquiry. If one retreats to esoteric understanding, then this can be interpreted as sectarian behavior. And I don’t think you want to appear as that to the public. So which way can you take?

I find this comment rather manipulative and petty-minded, it shows a considerable lack of nobility and good faith.

Besides, if you are not interested in esoteric understanding then why are you digging in fourth way teachings?

 

[Medhavi]

Ok, the most sensible thing left then is go back to reading and applying exactly as it is outlined here in order to get better understanding since I am not communicating my point very well. I hope I'll better understand where you are coming from.

Besides, if you are not interested in esoteric understanding then why are you digging in fourth way teachings?

I didn't say I wasn't interested in that. I said that some things that have been said in these topics could be discussed without resorting to esoteric understandings, which make it hard to have any sensible debate without prior initation into the same level of understanding. If I don't have it, and I obviously don't have it yet as this discussion shows, I have to do things on your terms before anything useful can come out of this. I was just hoping for an even dialogue where you could not only search for patterns in my writings but also see if you had participated in fields other than your own enough to not make generalising statements, which was the initial point.

 

[SeekinTruth]

What Ana pointed out is only one example of being manipulative and petty. There's quite a lot of passive aggressive and manipulative tactics in your writing that's also filled with projection, obsession, and denial. It's basically typical Right Man Syndrome. No matter how long you write and nitpick, these remain transparent. And the whole point of being part of this forum is to keep pointing these things out to you that are transparent to all those doing the pointing out, but not to you.

If you can't consider that this is what's really going on, then what's the point of being on this forum?

And to add a point about your insinuations in the quote above in Ana's post. A cult is very easy to become part of and very hard to leave. This forum and the related activities is quite the opposite.