About Lying, Illusion and the Predator's Mind

[stainlesssteve]

Fair question. I studied under philosophy lecturers at three universities.

 

[Joe]

One of the points, though, that I think Anart is making is: Is this actually externally considerate to the reader - especially to a reader whose first language isn't English? One of the most elementary things you can do is to ask yourself about any sentence that you write: How might this sentence be misunderstood by the reader? Now you're standing in the reader's shoes.

I don't think this is one of the points Anart was making. I think the singular point she was making was that Bud's post was a perfect example of how the 'predator's mind' functions. Technically, all of Bud's sentences made sense, but there was little or no useful point being made from the point of view of the average reader. As a result, the reader is left with a strange feeling of having read something without having gleaned any real information, and left somewhat confused, but also without being able to point to any problems of syntax. It was all intellect running on emotional energy, which the 'classical mindset' promotes by promoting the idea that intellectual deliberation will finally solve any problem. Perhaps the missing ingredient for discerning the objective truth about anything is 'emotional intelligence'.

 

[stainlesssteve]

With respect to the post of Bud's under scrutiny here, what I got was that Bud was feeling for a place where he could check the validity of fixed ideas, against the perceived pattern and purpose available to him in the great flux.
Relating this to the work concept of "lying", in the context of an intense group ethos such as we have here, built on massive contributions of (frequently) erudite and eloquent posts, and on commitment and courage, it seemed to me that Bud's message is couched in terms that allow acknowledgement of the value of what has had some duration, and also allows for feeling the shape of things to come, and the pain implied in any transition.
With respect to the work concept of " lying ", (also " cannot do "), I propose that these are liable to be over-emphasized, and can be self-fulfilling tenets, with consequences including wasted potential.
Particularly with respect to ISOTM, it is always crucial to remember that G was forming his group from people in Russia, of a certain very particular social background, which no longer obtains. Certain emphases need re-examination in this light.

 

[anart]

With respect to the post of Bud's under scrutiny here, what I got was that Bud was feeling for a place where he could check the validity of fixed ideas, against the perceived pattern and purpose available to him in the great flux.
Relating this to the work concept of "lying", in the context of an intense group ethos such as we have here, built on massive contributions of (frequently) erudite and eloquent posts, and on commitment and courage, it seemed to me that Bud's message is couched in terms that allow acknowledgement of the value of what has had some duration, and also allows for feeling the shape of things to come, and the pain implied in any transition.
With respect to the work concept of " lying ", (also " cannot do "), I propose that these are liable to be over-emphasized, and can be self-fulfilling tenets, with consequences including wasted potential.
Particularly with respect to ISOTM, it is always crucial to remember that G was forming his group from people in Russia, of a certain very particular social background, which no longer obtains. Certain emphases need re-examination in this light.

'stainlesssteve' as a VERY new member of this forum, it would be appreciated if you could keep your critiques of how things operate here to a minimum. There is an opportunity here for Bud that will be lost if the heat is released - in fact, it may have already been lost. If you were capable of deciding or even commenting on how this environment should work, you would be tapped as a moderator. Please realize that you are in someone elses 'house' and it is not up to you to decide how the furniture is arranged.

In short - you know not of what you speak - and in your overestimation of yourself you are doing harm. Please re-read the forum guidelines, in their entirety.

 

[stainlesssteve]

Anart, I am a visitor, acknowledged.
I have no intention of accepting any position such as moderator in any group, if it is ever offered. I've been through plenty of group dynamics, such as you allude to; I know what you are talking about. First, if you want a hermetically sealed crucible, you don't do operations in public. Second, when in public, where you may interact with "ships in the night", as well as "work ethics", rules of common courtesy apply.

 

[anart]

Anart, I am a visitor, acknowledged.
I have no intention of accepting any position such as moderator in any group, if it is ever offered.

I apologize if I've been unclear, that is not being offered, and you are a member of this forum, who supposedly read and agreed to the guidelines before your first post.

I've been through plenty of group dynamics, such as you allude to; I know what you are talking about.

Actions speak louder than words and your actions reflect that you do not know what I am talking about.

First, if you want a hermetically sealed crucible, you don't do operations in public.

More people learn in public and we are here to spread information and knowledge in a time when the world is on fire. We've run out of time for 'secret hermetically sealed crucibles' though we certainly have layers of participation. This forum is a public interface for a very specific reason and just because it is public does not mean that we allow people to come in and try to dictate how it runs, or overtly undermine certain dynamics.

Second, when in public, where you may interact with "ships in the night", as well as "work ethics", rules of common courtesy apply.

Absolutely, which is why I pointed out that you are in someone else's house and, as such, you are expected to abide by the rules of that house. When you don't, you'll be called on it because one person is not more important than a safe, comfortable, objectively beneficial atmosphere for all. If you don't find this to your liking, you are more than welcome to start your own forum or find one on which you can say anything in any way you'd like.

 

[stainlesssteve]

How exactly have I overstepped the guidelines, please?
Bennett said if you want to break into triadic thinking, a useful practice is the suspension of judgement.
Dyadic manifestations are characterized by violence.
To enlarge, one does judge, but not too soon and not too fast.
"when young I did most eagerly frequent
doctor and saint, and heard great argument
about it and about, but evermore came out
By that same door as in I went"
"in situations of contention, the gentleperson prefers to desist"

 

[Beau]

First, if you want a hermetically sealed crucible, you don't do operations in public.

To wit, when in someone else's house, you don't tell them how to arrange the furniture or change the channel on their television. That would be rude.

Second, when in public, where you may interact with "ships in the night", as well as "work ethics", rules of common courtesy apply.

Indeed, but it seems especially egregious that this comment is coming from someone who is not applying said courtesy (that kind of thing goes both ways). And nowhere does it say that common courtesy means we have to allow someone to come in to OUR house and tell us how we should run it. That, also, would be rude. (Hint: you're being rude)

 

[webglider]

Bud, I'm going to throw my two cents in here only because I remember you as Buddy, not Bud, and I recall that, when you were Buddy, you were extremely emotionally considerate and crystal clear in the way you phrased your observations.

Frankly, I'm worried about you. I'm concerned that the topic you are choosing to explore may be too much for you to handle.

This is an incoherence in your posts that seem to reveal a breakdown of thought, and that is, I suggest because you are venturing too close to the concept of thought itself and using thought to explore and explain thought.

There seem to be too many insights occurring too fast with no shut off valve to cool yourself down and reestablish your equilibrium.

Perhaps you could proceed with this study using another center until you are more grounded.

We are awash in words, and most of them, I've come to realize are put together to form lies, to control us, to make us control each other, or to misrepresent the true nature of the world. If words are the mechanism which the predator uses to control us, than words are a trap which can snap shut on us if we get too close to its mystery without taking the proper precautions to protect ourselves first.

What those precautions are in the case of your study I do not know.

Perhaps Perceval has part of the answer when he writies:

It was all intellect running on emotional energy, which the 'classical mindset' promotes by promoting the idea that intellectual deliberation will finally solve any problem. Perhaps the missing ingredient for discerning the objective truth about anything is 'emotional intelligence'.

Perhaps it's time to put the words aside for awhile and listen with your heart.

 

[stainlesssteve]

Webglider, you spoke of words being used as agents of control. A concept recently was suggested to me which I think could be developed by the great minds on this forum. It is the concept of power as a commodity. One which has quantity; i.e. there can be too much of it, or too little. Etc. In the present times of crisis refered to by Anart, I'm convinced a study of power can be of use to whoever may come out the other side of said crisis.
It is necessary to have some mutual control.

 

[Niall]

How exactly have I overstepped the guidelines, please?

You've interrupted a potentially important lesson for a long-term member whom you know nothing about by coming here and 'teaching', when in fact you are helping to keep him in his illusions by feeding his predator's mind. Ideally, newcomers would grasp from reading the forum guidelines that you are expected to listen awhile. That doesn't mean you have to be silent as such, but it is advised at least until you learn to see what is really happening on this forum.

This isn't open for debate. Until you do see what this forum is for, this will be pointed out to you for as long as our patience lasts.

 

[stainlesssteve]

OK, I thank you for your patience.
It has been instructive, coming in the way I have.
I'll shut up for a while
And read.
Meantime, all the best to you all.

 

[Alana]

Second, when in public, where you may interact with "ships in the night", as well as "work ethics", rules of common courtesy apply.

Indeed, but it seems especially egregious that this comment is coming from someone who is not applying said courtesy (that kind of thing goes both ways). And nowhere does it say that common courtesy means we have to allow someone to come in to OUR house and tell us how we should run it. That, also, would be rude. (Hint: you're being rude)

Exactly. Though you might not see it at this moment stainlesssteve, and you might even feel resistant to accepting it, your words present a person who does not understand yet what the aims of this forum is, who values their own thoughts and words, and who needs to learn to listen before you can communicate respectfully and with awareness with the rest of us. You appear as one "whose cup is full" as they say. And this is not only my impression, as I see from other replies to you. It doesn't matter if you studied the 4th way all your life and you feel confident that you can discuss its concepts, this forum is based on more than that, as you can read in the Forum Guidelines (which every new member must read in its entirety, as others have also suggested):

To create an environment for the stimulation, development and then the alignment of objective consciousnesses as defined and described by the Cassiopaeans with the able help of Georges Gurdjieff, Mouravieff, Castaneda, and many other sources available to us. The foundation of this forum is The Cassiopaean Experiment, the layout of the rooms is generally modelled after the work of Gurdjieff and Mouravieff, the decor and details are filled in by Castaneda and many modern psychological studies.

But all the above can be remedied if you are indeed sincere, willing, and value what this forum has to offer. Next to reading the forum guidelines, a good start would be to read the Comprehensive Guide for the Serious Reader. The above should give you a basic understanding of the forum, without having to read each and every thread in it. Have fun learning!

 

[Buddy]

I really appreciate all you guys offering your feedback here. There is some value in everything that has been written.

I would like to report that the heat anart refers to wasn't entirely lost. I still continued to struggle with my confusion even after logging off the forum last night. This struggle even followed me into sleep. I was struggling to understand what was bothering me so much about all these language concerns and why I couldn't shake myself loose from it.

Around midday today, as I continued to push myself to figure this out, something happened. Some gentle waves of emotion washed over me. My eyes burned with tears, yet as suddenly as it came, it passed. When it passed, I felt a sense of relief. I really had no explanation for what happened and no real inclination to make a story to explain it. I just sort of relaxed and waited.

Somehow, suddenly, I just seemed to understand the idea of "line of force" (which I also struggled with while feeling like an ignoramus), as it applies to both "closed" systems and "open" systems, where I saw that the Cassiopaean Experiment is the only "open" system going that matches the "open system" nature of quantum reality. Seemingly at the same time that I saw this, I also saw the irony in Aristotelian logic and how this Sophist dis-liker ultimately built his own syllogisms on the central Sophist tenet: "Man is the measure of all things." At this particular point, my "thoughts", if you could call them that, seemed to move very fast because it seemed like I was sort of viewing all this at one time.

Regarding my personal sense of self, it felt sort of like I had seated somewhere. From this apparent vantage point, I saw something of "Bud" as a thought. A closed system thinker, so-to-speak. A bunch of little I's, thought loops - the whole works, sure - but even as a collection, or system, it was still a thought. A thought thinking thoughts. Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?

I don't know what else to say at the moment, except that everyone's observations concerning me are correct in one way or another, yet I don't feel like the same old Bud anymore. I mean that in a good way.

 

[ana]

Bud, you may want to try to concentrate purely and simply on external consideration. Try to walk in others shoes, to see as they see, to think as the think and to feel as they do, so you can properly communicate with them.

Nothing challenges our knowledge more than trying to communicate it externally considering, and if you dismiss the need for a cooperative and generous simplicity in order to communicate, you also lose the oportunity to learn more about yourself and your own ideas because, in "translating" we are reordering our minds.

Imagine if you will that there is a wall between you and others. You are trapped in your own mind, your own ideas, discoveries, epiphanies, insights without considering the state of mind of those you are trying to communicate with.

We need to break that wall with all our strength Bud otherwise we are doomed to live in our little corner of the world alone.

See again Perceval's post:

I think the singular point she was making was that Bud's post was a perfect example of how the 'predator's mind' functions. Technically, all of Bud's sentences made sense, but there was little or no useful point being made from the point of view of the average reader. As a result, the reader is left with a strange feeling of having read something without having gleaned any real information, and left somewhat confused, but also without being able to point to any problems of syntax. It was all intellect running on emotional energy, which the 'classical mindset' promotes by promoting the idea that intellectual deliberation will finally solve any problem. Perhaps the missing ingredient for discerning the objective truth about anything is 'emotional intelligence'.