Advice please re "critical" posting

The Spoon said:
Laura said:
If this issue still bothers you after all this time, if after all this time interacting on this forum, you can't make a decision about this, if, after all the reams of writing I have been forced to do over this issue, then there's nothing else I can say.


Laura said:
In fact, the very fact that you bring this up this way affects me rather emotionally. Which vein do you want me to open for you?

I was looking for clarity and a resolution to my blockage, not blood. I'm sorry if I upset you.

It seems to me you were much more concerned and thinking about 'self' than about any other person - in this case Laura! That makes how you were thinking STS by definition. And, you seem to think that this group is not 'headed toward STO'.

Try putting yourself in her shoes for a few minutes. It won't necessarily be easy, but just try...

If you have been reading at the Cass site and here at the Forum for some time you will have seen that:

Laura, her entire family, and many who are associated with this work have been under seige both from 3D and 4D forces for the entire time.
Laura's children were under physical attack while still in the US. One of them was nearly killed.
Ark was under great pressures too.
Moving house even to a location nearby is very stressful and unsettling. Moving to another country, where you don't even know the language, because you 'have to to survive' and continue with the life's work being undertaken (for all of humanity) is even more stressful.
The attorney involved and the moving company both turned out to be real scum and really messed things up royally.
All throughout this entire episode and afterwards you were under continual attack and defamation by those 'assigned' agents.

Then! Along comes someone who wants to know the 'story', which pained everyone involved terribly, and probably still 'hurts' till today.

How would you feel?

You see?

EDIT
I see Laura had already responded before I posted this, but it might still be a good idea to reflect on this.
 
The Spoon said:
Laura said:
I've read Judge Haggerty's decision several times and have extracted a few general principles from it that I would like some feedback on. In particular, it seems to me that I would have a very good case suing Vinnie Bridges, Stormbear Williams, and others by the terms defined for what is or is not protected opinion in this decision. And, of course, when we get our payout from Pepin (who has to reimburse us for our legal expenses!), I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile filing suit. After all, we have attys who know us, know our situation so all we would have to do would be to hand over all the tons of files of the Vinnie Defamation and Slander project we've been collecting over the years. Since our corporation is in California, we would naturally file suit there.

What do ya'll think?

It's difficult because on the one hand mud sticks. On the other hand one could end up spending all one's time and energy(money) brushing off mud and preventing people from throwing it.


Laura said:
I knew we needed to leave without attracting attention to the fact we were leaving. You could even say that the house raffle was partly a front - kind of like the "singing contest" front in the movie "The Sound of Music." In fact, the analogy is not too far off. There we were, with the DoD breathing down Ark's neck, wanting to suck him deeper into their secret projects the same way von Trapp was expected to "report for duty" to the Nazis.

What really happened there? Specifically was the winner (if there was a winner) a member of the Perseus Foundation and if the amount raised was only $14.5K then was the raffle called off and the money returned? Apologies if this story has been told before, I wasn't able to find it.


The Spoon said:
Laura said:
If this issue still bothers you after all this time, if after all this time interacting on this forum, you can't make a decision about this, if, after all the reams of writing I have been forced to do over this issue, then there's nothing else I can say.

I woudn't say it was a case of it bothering me "all this time", it actually came up last week when I read this posting which lead to a search for "Anonymous Coward 359752" and associated website that was neither interesting nor helpful.

As I said, I did search the forum about the issue (specifically for the word 'raffle' in all postings by Laura) before asking about it and got 7 hits, the one I quoted was the only one that seemed relevant ie not a quote of someone else's ranting.

Laura said:
In fact, the very fact that you bring this up this way affects me rather emotionally. Which vein do you want me to open for you?

I was looking for clarity and a resolution to my blockage, not blood. I'm sorry if I upset you.


It’s amazing the tranquility you show while asking questions wich obviously has the intend to sow seeds of doubt in reader's mind.
Also the tranquility you show while Laura is telling you how this is hurting her.
 
I dont know if this is the right place to say such, but seems that some forum members ( myself included) are not giving the due respect to the predator.
Exposing their "concerns" like they are the most natural and well thought. Remember, the predator is in EVERY THOUGHT PROCESS.
It means that constant vigilance of what is said and done is a must. And specially at those times,since more and more members reported that the predator is aroused , due to the breathing program.
Begin to consider that maybe your "I" is not the one who is doing the typing, and that perhaps you may be the instrument of deception. And ACT upon this perception.

On another note... Thank you Laura.
And even if I said it every night after the Prayer, would not be enough to balance the positive change that you made in my life, only with your words, voice and deeds.
 
In my case, regarding the raffle ticket story, I myself have been
challenged several times by different people, having introduced
them to the Cassiopaean Websites, SOTT, Forums, and to answer
to their charges brought forth by the likes of VB & his ilk.

But before I could defend the story against L,A,&T, I had to spend
some time reading and picking apart the story from both sides before
I could arrive at any conclusions. L has provided voluminous records,
posted online, and that was a big help.

The problem, as I see it, is some people do not take the time to
fully understand the crux of the matter, perhaps take short-cuts,
and end up arriving towards a subjective conclusion, especially when
not following up and balancing the story with objective facts, and
towards a successful objective and rational conclusion.

Put another way, if one is seeking "the dirt" to begin with, then perhaps
one is predisposing themselves towards a subjective conclusion, especially
if one does not wish to follow up with objective facts? The challengers, as I
have often seen, never follow up, then expects others to do the hard work
for them, and often, I am left wondering of their sincereness, and wasted my
time. Is it a `Cat and Mouse' game? Perhaps.

Anyway, after having gone through the analysis, it was clear to me
that Laura made some mistakes (and who does not?) in the handling
of that affair, but it was equally clear of the vultures that operated
around her. Anyone knows what human nature is about when there
is money involved - and amongst the innocents, there are also the
shysters, sharks, crooks, ... always looking to score big, with least
amount of effort and the maximum amount of profits, if they could.

It is clear to me, that Laura wanted to sell the house as fast as possible
and to move on with her life. Unfortunately, the sharks surrounded her,
and the rest is history.

You cannot change mind of those who which to remain subjective,
especially if one has no conscience, the psychopaths. I agree with
L, to get the heck away from the Ps after giving them only their due.
 
The Spoon said:
I don't feel at all certain that the ultimate destination of this group is STO. Sorry, but I just don't have a gut feeling about it.
IMO the STO concept is not something that is easy to grasp intellectually or emotionally in the state where most of us find ourselves. It runs contrary to everything we have been taught or directly experienced in life. So it is almost impossible for us to have an idealized image of what a STO group or person will be like - it is a completely different paradigm. This brings about the question of faith - in Laura and the network. This is not blind faith but one based on currently available data along with humility brought about by the realization that we are faced with something way beyond our normal understanding. Without this faith, it is difficult to learn. And without learning, we are not really in a position to make a call on the future direction of the group - osit.
fwiw
 
Galahad said:
you think that you can pick and choose as you wish, as if you are able to 'discern' was is correct and what isn't.

It's more that there are things that I'm able to take onboard and things that (at my current stage of development) I'm not. But I can see that rather than just taking onboard things that "ring true", I need to be making my own investigations and posting about anything that I can't take onboard. I'll make more of an effort to research/try/discuss the cherries that I'm currently leaving on the branch.

This, for example, is something that I find very difficult:
Laura said:
Gurdjieff said:
But it is very difficult for a man to decide to throw everything to the devil and begin real work. And why is it difficult? Principally because his life is too easy and even if he considers it bad he is already accustomed to it. It is better for it to be bad, yet known. But here there is something new and unknown. He does not even know whether any result can be got from it or not. And besides, the most difficult thing here is that it is necessary to obey someone, to submit to someone.
In the case of this forum and QFS, that "someone," that "teacher", is a group of people who are all seeking the same goal: to awaken and get over themselves, stop thinking emotionally, etc.

So yes absolutely I want to stop thinking emotionally, but I am highly resistant to submitting to this group.

I found this quote while looking up Discernment

Cass Glossary] Gurdjieff says that self-love isolates man from reality and prevents esoteric development[/quote] Which I think is where I'm blocked - valuing my own opinion over that of others said:
Moreover, if you have followed this work for any length of time, you would be able to see that our ideas and practice develops and grows as we all develop and grow. We are not dogmatists. We do not think our ideas are set in stone, and we have shown that through our actions.

All of this is right there, staring you in the face, while you, yourself, feel you are stuck.

Can you SEE it?

Yes absolutely I can see the ideas and practice developing and agree that there is no dogma here - at least, none that I can detect and if there were any I'm sure it could be (with appropriate evidence and justification) challenged.

I'm now asking myself "What really happened there?" Stuck...I feel...apart from this group. My earliest postings did not receive the response I wanted (ie Unconditional Acceptance / Feed me, Seymour) and what I "heard" was: "You are fundamentally flawed and do not know what you're talking about. Go away and come back when you've read Everything Twice."

So while I'm still here (and making a half hearted attempt to 'fit in') because I recognise that there's so much of value to learn, I'm also kicking out against that (I felt) rejection - which came out as soon as Laura said (I heard) "we're not going to be so critical". And then the thing is, this forum is saying that I am (we all are) fundamentally flawed. I would prefer "we are all fundamentally fine" but that's just not how it is, is it?

Laura said:
Well, I AM understanding and patient and loving just by nature, and that isn't going to change. But what HAS to change is me always carrying the burden of doing the understanding, being patient, and loving while other people aren't really putting their all into practicing the same in my direction.

I'm glad that you're moving to protect yourself here. I think a lot of people who were brought up to 'give', eventually come to a point where that is no longer sustainable. My wife and I are complementary opposites in many ways, one being that I'm coming from being 70/30 selfish/selfless and she's 30/70. The demands of raising children over the past few years are forcing her to recognise her limitations in giving and demand more of me, and me to recognise her need (and those of the children) and start giving more.

Laura] How do you think YOUR words affected ME??? [/quote] I thought that since you're in the position of teacher (and I recognise that it is more correctly the group that is the teacher said:
It’s amazing the tranquility you show while asking questions wich obviously has the intend to sow seeds of doubt in reader's mind.
Also the tranquility you show while Laura is telling you how this is hurting her.

My tranquillity is a defence mechanism that is somewhat positive in that I don't often 'react' at least in an overt way (which in this context could get me banned), but negative in that people often 'want' an emotional reaction from me that they don't receive. Some people push until they get one. But the emotions are still there, Ana, even if they're temporarily as inaccessible to myself as they are to others.

Saying my intention is to "sow seeds of doubt" would be to suggest I was fully conscious of what I was doing, which is of course (given my posting history) highly unlikely.
 
The Spoon said:
Ana said:
It’s amazing the tranquility you show while asking questions wich obviously has the intend to sow seeds of doubt in reader's mind.
Also the tranquility you show while Laura is telling you how this is hurting her.

My tranquillity is a defence mechanism that is somewhat positive in that I don't often 'react' at least in an overt way (which in this context could get me banned), but negative in that people often 'want' an emotional reaction from me that they don't receive. Some people push until they get one. But the emotions are still there, Ana, even if they're temporarily as inaccessible to myself as they are to others.

Saying my intention is to "sow seeds of doubt" would be to suggest I was fully conscious of what I was doing, which is of course (given my posting history) highly unlikely.

And this smells like manipulation...
There is no need to be fully conscious to sow seeds of doubt, nor to inflict harm on others without feeling remorse.
A great example are psychopaths.
 
Hi The Spoon --

The Spoon said:
So yes absolutely I want to stop thinking emotionally, but I am highly resistant to submitting to this group....which I think is where I'm blocked - valuing my own opinion over that of others, and "trust issues" appear as a justification for that preference.

I'm now asking myself "What really happened there?" Stuck...I feel...apart from this group. My earliest postings did not receive the response I wanted (ie Unconditional Acceptance / Feed me, Seymour) and what I "heard" was: "You are fundamentally flawed and do not know what you're talking about. Go away and come back when you've read Everything Twice."

So while I'm still here (and making a half hearted attempt to 'fit in') because I recognise that there's so much of value to learn, I'm also kicking out against that (I felt) rejection - which came out as soon as Laura said (I heard) "we're not going to be so critical". And then the thing is, this forum is saying that I am (we all are) fundamentally flawed. I would prefer "we are all fundamentally fine" but that's just not how it is, is it?

Based on what you have written, particularly the bolded parts, it strikes me that you are having a fundamental struggle between the way that you wish things were and the way that they actually are -- in other words, a classic struggle between subjectivity and objectivity. The impression that I get is that you are going through a process similar to that which happens when you have been on a junk-food diet and decided to try a healthy diet instead. There are enough reasons which have accumulated to make an effort to switch, but at first the new diet doesn't taste all that good even though it is much more nutritious, and you crave the comfort of the old diet and may look for reasons to justify going back to it.

Although you haven't mentioned specifics, you have alluded to the fact that there are other forums of learning you participate in which are much more 'feel-good', and you are provided a much more comfortable view of reality and perhaps even more comfortable direct feedback. You receive the message there (wherever "there" is) that "we are all fundamentally fine", which probably also requires a minimum of work on your part, and you are probably not required to submit to anyone or anything directly, leaving your ego intact. In the present analogy, this is all junk-food, but it is a lot more pleasant to receive than the alternative, and like real junk-food, the negative effects of a steady diet of subjective feel-good philosophy don't really show up until much later down the road. Nevertheless, one will feel compelled to defend it, largely on an emotional level although one may try to convert it into intellectual rationalization.

The only real aid (for any of us) in this struggle that I see is to, as objectively as possible, judge the tree by the fruits. Are the founders and leaders of this forum benefitting at the expense of the members, or do they give to them and help them grow? Are the forum members suffering from their participation here or are their lives being enriched? What is the bird's-eye view over time -- say the last year, or last two years? Have things degenerated or progressed? When you feel confident in your answers to these kinds of questions, it is much easier to evaluate your own position as well as the accusations of outsiders who have never sought to struggle with the actual facts.
 
The Spoon said:
Galahad said:
you think that you can pick and choose as you wish, as if you are able to 'discern' was is correct and what isn't.

It's more that there are things that I'm able to take onboard and things that (at my current stage of development) I'm not. But I can see that rather than just taking onboard things that "ring true", I need to be making my own investigations and posting about anything that I can't take onboard. I'll make more of an effort to research/try/discuss the cherries that I'm currently leaving on the branch.

Dunno dude, you seem to be mashing up your words here. Whats the difference between picking bits that you 'like' and picking bit that 'you're not ready for'. It seems as if you generated that logic to fit the situation. "Oh I can't accept that just yet because I'm not ready." Its the same thing imho.

The Spoon said:
This, for example, is something that I find very difficult:
Laura said:
Gurdjieff said:
But it is very difficult for a man to decide to throw everything to the devil and begin real work. And why is it difficult? Principally because his life is too easy and even if he considers it bad he is already accustomed to it. It is better for it to be bad, yet known. But here there is something new and unknown. He does not even know whether any result can be got from it or not. And besides, the most difficult thing here is that it is necessary to obey someone, to submit to someone.
In the case of this forum and QFS, that "someone," that "teacher", is a group of people who are all seeking the same goal: to awaken and get over themselves, stop thinking emotionally, etc.

So yes absolutely I want to stop thinking emotionally, but I am highly resistant to submitting to this group.

Well that's interesting, the way you word it, it's almost as if you expect us to start dishing out orders, that's not really how its done here. I'm surprised you haven't picked up on that yet. The forum itself is the teacher, the group, with some individuals being more experienced/knowledge in certain areas then others. We keep each other in check, and give each other feedback when its asked for. No one is told to anything, however we do offer each other advice (when asked for) - thats the whole point. Two biggies that most of us have taken up is the detox diet and the breathing program - have you given those a go?

The Spoon said:
I'm now asking myself "What really happened there?" Stuck...I feel...apart from this group. My earliest postings did not receive the response I wanted (ie Unconditional Acceptance / Feed me, Seymour) and what I "heard" was: "You are fundamentally flawed and do not know what you're talking about. Go away and come back when you've read Everything Twice."

So while I'm still here (and making a half hearted attempt to 'fit in') because I recognise that there's so much of value to learn, I'm also kicking out against that (I felt) rejection - which came out as soon as Laura said (I heard) "we're not going to be so critical". And then the thing is, this forum is saying that I am (we all are) fundamentally flawed. I would prefer "we are all fundamentally fine" but that's just not how it is, is it?

Again I think you're mixing up your words. We all suffer various degrees of ponerization, which we work on here. Beyond that, we're all STS which isn't a flaw, its just the nature of this particular 3rd density reality. Anyone can be 'fine' if they decide that they're 'fine' and they need no Work on themselves. I know quite a few people that managed to maintain that self-illusion, I've been guilty of it - even after participating here.

The Spoon said:
Laura said:
Well, I AM understanding and patient and loving just by nature, and that isn't going to change. But what HAS to change is me always carrying the burden of doing the understanding, being patient, and loving while other people aren't really putting their all into practicing the same in my direction.

I'm glad that you're moving to protect yourself here. I think a lot of people who were brought up to 'give', eventually come to a point where that is no longer sustainable. My wife and I are complementary opposites in many ways, one being that I'm coming from being 70/30 selfish/selfless and she's 30/70. The demands of raising children over the past few years are forcing her to recognise her limitations in giving and demand more of me, and me to recognise her need (and those of the children) and start giving more.

Maybe it's time you realize the same is true about this forum and its time you 'give' some understanding, patients, and love. That could be demonstrated by researching VB and all his nonsense and realizing any insinuation he makes is garbage.

Pardon if this comes off as a bit - oh gruff - or even harsh, but your sit there, perfectly calm, and insinuate VBs accusations may have some merit, that the forum isn't STO enough... It doesn't seem to bother you in the least how Laura was personally affected by your words. I mean, reading her bit threw me into a loop yesterday and I didn't have the clarity of mind to respond.

I also think Shijing gave you a lot of good points to think about. In fact I like his style much moreso then mine, but fwiw ::post::
 
The Spoon: it really doesn't take much research on your part to see that Vincent Bridges is a psychopathic individual. He is a liar, a con artist and an all-round really nasty piece of work! Once you come to that realisation, you shouldn't need any more convincing that Laura was wronged, and has continued to be wronged, in a most despicable, evil manner.

Laura said:
After all these years, most of the people on this forum still only think about themselves, their own issues, programs, lives, and very little about anything else. It's a "lifestyle": "I'll "do my little part" and pat myself on the back for being a good recycler, or sharer of information, or nice person that other people can look up to."

And this is something I'm aware of each time I browse SOTT, and each time I read the forums. And I feel guilty about it. If anyone was ever sceptical of the possibility of miracles, they need be sceptical no longer after witnessing the enormous amount of time, effort and energy which is poured into SOTT on a daily basis. I'd love to be more involved in SOTT, only I know that I am not anywhere near at the level of development which is required to be a moderator. I wish I could speak two languages fluently so I could assist with translations. I actually transcribed a podcast a long time ago, but discovered that someone else beat me to it, and within a week just about all the podcasts up to that point had already been transcribed. I would *love* to be a proof-reader for future SOTT publications. I am a pedantic person who can see mistakes in writing that people often miss. I am also good with Photoshop, Flash, After Effects, video editing etc. If anyone needs help in these areas, I would love to get involved.
 
Thank you Laura for the short history of the development of the forum.

In the beginning, this was supposed to be a forum dedicated to "The Work" more or less as Gurdjieff conceived it with modifications based on Mouravieff and Castaneda, modern psychology including cognitive therapy, etc. It was a way of working that brooked no whining and crying, and sought to deal with emotional issues strictly from an intellectual point of view. It works for some people... but that number seems to be VERY small. So, we are in the process of seriously modifying that idea. Maybe that's why Gurdjieff didn't get any further than he did - he got stuck on one method that he had conceived and experimented with, and could go no further. He was so screamingly, in-your-face right about so many things, but his approach just never got off the ground.

Obviously, the majority of human beings are very complex creatures with a strong component of emotion. If we will admit right up front that probably most normal people THINK with emotional energy, then we are one step ahead. But then, we have to figure out why and ameliorate those conditions.

Most often, people think emotionally because they have a lot of scars of the soul and repressed and suppressed emotions, mainly painful emotions. There are also cognitive reasons why emotions tend to dominate thinking but I don't have the resource to hand at this moment to quote that most interesting research. I'll come back with it later.

In any event, we are now in the midst of a most exciting experiment in a NEW WAY of working on these problems that amounts to a "course correction" - the Eíriú-Eolas - Program. The initial results are VERY encouraging and I can see major changes in people's thinking (by reading their posts) on a daily basis.

In management speak this sounds very much like an ‘amoebic’ organization (excellent in my mind), and paraphrasing the C’s (or direct?), a virtual, self-referencing, non-linear, organic organization. As such organizations grow they often require the minimum of internal structuring to continue effectively. This may already be present in the form of the QFG moderators, as alluded to below.

Anart said:
I just want to chime in here because this is so important to understand, especially as it relates to this forum and 'mirroring'. Receiving an objective mirror is a very, very powerful thing and a very powerful way to learn - for some people; those capable of withstanding the shock and utilizing that heat in a beneficial way. For other people, however, it can 'shut them down', even to the extent of preventing further progress - and this is part of the reason why we're consciously adapting our approach here on the forum, in an attempt to reach and help more people. As Laura mentioned, this does not mean that 'mirroring' will stop all together - it won't, it's too important and powerful a tool to be utilized as part of the awakening process. It simply means that we'll be taking a more comprehensive approach that will allow for these differences in sensitivity and, thus, allow us to benefit more people - times a' wastin'!

edit - I see that this 'structural aspect' is already covered by your post in Where's Buddy?
In QFS, we have overcome that by ensuring that all members are known to each other by their real names, they know where each other lives, they often meet in person and have outings together, projects together which involve face to face interactions, and so on. ...


With reference to the The Spoon post, and Laura’s reply

Well, I AM understanding and patient and loving just by nature, and that isn't going to change. But what HAS to change is me always carrying the burden of doing the understanding, being patient, and loving while other people aren't really putting their all into practicing the same in my direction.

After all these years, most of the people on this forum still only think about themselves, their own issues, programs, lives, and very little about anything else. It's a "lifestyle": "I'll "do my little part" and pat myself on the back for being a good recycler, or sharer of information, or nice person that other people can look up to."

And after all these years, it hurts to think that no one has taken the example I have tried to set and applied it to themselves in respect of me.



It is definitely not the time to beat up on me. Laura has had enough of that for a 100 lifetimes, so I don't need it here from forum members. And neither does anybody else.

I don't need mindless acquiescence, I simply need the very thing that I am trying to example for all of you, external considering.

See?

So, how's that for an emotional reaction?

Perhaps this is what the C’s were alluding to in the last session re the ‘broken pan handle’, or possibly more.

C’s said:
Q: (L) Why did I break my iron pan?

A: A message to self.

Q: (L) Well, I haven't been able to figure out what the message was.

A: What part broke?

Q: (Joe) The handle. Does that mean Florida is going to break off? (L) Oh, the handle?

A: "Get a handle on things!"

Q: (L) Hmm. Get a handle on things. (A***) Any specific area? (L) Was there any special significance to the things I broke the day that the geese were killed?

A: Just the energies already discussed.

Q: (L) What am I supposed to get a handle on?

A: The whole operation. You have been relying on people inside a frequency fence. It will take diligent practice of the program, including networking, for those afflicted to rise above.

Q: (L) But they can do it, is that it?

A: Oh yes! Now goodnight! Goodbye. 9/quote]

And, this quote below is a timely reminder for us all.

After all these years, most of the people on this forum still only think about themselves, their own issues, programs, lives, and very little about anything else. It's a "lifestyle": "I'll "do my little part" and pat myself on the back for being a good recycler, or sharer of information, or nice person that other people can look up to."

Thank you.
 
The Spoon said:
This, for example, is something that I find very difficult:
Laura said:
Gurdjieff said:
But it is very difficult for a man to decide to throw everything to the devil and begin real work. And why is it difficult? Principally because his life is too easy and even if he considers it bad he is already accustomed to it. It is better for it to be bad, yet known. But here there is something new and unknown. He does not even know whether any result can be got from it or not. And besides, the most difficult thing here is that it is necessary to obey someone, to submit to someone.
In the case of this forum and QFS, that "someone," that "teacher", is a group of people who are all seeking the same goal: to awaken and get over themselves, stop thinking emotionally, etc.

So yes absolutely I want to stop thinking emotionally, but I am highly resistant to submitting to this group.

Spoon, you don't have to "submit" to this group. As long as you practice external considering you are welcome to be here on your own terms. This isn't QFS where a person makes a choice to get down to work, to be constantly mirrored, to have constant alarm clocks rung in his ear, and to actively mirror others and sound alarm clocks for them. Here in the forum, there is some "mirroring," but believe me, it is nothing like the mirrors a person may get in QFS!

I do think that Gurjieff's further remarks about submitting to a teacher - which he makes clear is voluntary and only for awhile - might be appropriately quoted here:

"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."
...
"The question of will, of one's own will and of another man's will, is much more complicated than it seems at the first glance. A man has not sufficient will to do, that is, to control himself and all his actions, but he has sufficient will to obey another person. And only in this way can he escape from the law of accident. There is no other way.

This fear of being subordinated is really nothing more than programming, the predator's mind, buffers, etc. In short, it is "The Flyer's Mind" that is afraid. And it is the Flyer that controls you.

Added:
from Esoteric Glossary said:
Predator's Mind


This is the Castaneda term for that which aligns man with the thought center of service to self.

In Active Side of Infinity, Don Juan tells Castaneda of the Earth being invaded in the mists of time by creatures of condensed darkness, the so-called Flyers which use man as food.

The key idea as that these cosmic predators gave man their own mind. This is reasonable in light of much other material. At the human level, a system based on exploitation and consuming and control is seen to shape people in its own image: The slave tends to dream of becoming a master rather than of abolishing slavery. Any organization based on dominance naturally takes the form of a pyramid with few at the top and most at the bottom. For man to be the bottom or in some cases intermediate level of such a system, man must have the attributes of the dominators, only at a reduced scale.

At the metaphysical level, many channeled sources point out that while STS beings eat what they can, energies emanating from STO oriented beings are not edible.

Castaneda's writings in large part deal with ways of claiming one's own in terms of energy and free will from such a system. The battle is in large part internal. One must unmask and stand up to one's internal predator first. Otherwise one's external actions, even if well motivated, take place in the paradigm and mode of the predator.

The internal predator can be extremely subtle. Still, it has some general recognizable characteristics: Castaneda puts it as follows: [excerpted]

"They [the sorcerers of ancient Mexico]discovered that we have a companion for life. We have a predator that came from the depths of the cosmos and took over the rule of our lives. Human beings are its prisoners. The predator is our lord and master. It has rendered us docile, helpless. If we want to protest, it suppresses our protest. If we want to act independently, it demands that we don't do so." […] You have arrived, by your effort alone, to what the shamans of ancient Mexico called the topic of topics,. I have been beating around the bush all this time, insinuating to you that something is holding us prisoner. Indeed we are held prisoner! This was an energetic fact for the sorcerers of ancient Mexico." " […] They took over because we are food for them, and they squeeze us mercilessly because we are their sustenance. Just as we rear chickens in chicken coops, gallineros, the predators rear us in human coops humaneros. Therefore, their food is always available to them." […]

"I want to appeal to your analytical mind. . Think for a moment, and tell me how you would explain the contradiction between the intelligence of man the engineer and the stupidity of his systems of beliefs, or the stupidity of his contradictory behavior. Sorcerers believe that the predators have given us our systems of beliefs, our ideas of good and evil, our social mores. They are the ones who set up our hopes and expectations and dreams of success or failure. They have given us covetousness, greed, and cowardice. It is the predators who make us complacent, routinary, and egomaniacal." " […] In order to keep us obedient and meek and weak, the predators engage themselves in a stupendous maneuver-stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist. A horrendous maneuver from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind, which becomes our mind. The predators' mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now. "I know that even though you have never suffered hunger, you have food anxiety, which is none other than the anxiety of the predator who fears that any moment now its maneuver is going to be uncovered and food is going to be denied. Through the mind, which, after all, is their mind, the predators inject into the lives of human beings whatever is convenient for them. And they ensure, in this manner, a degree of security to act as a buffer against their fear." " {end quote]

Castaneda further explains that infants are born with a glowing coat of awareness and that this is what the predator eats, to the point where only a narrow fringe is left. This narrow fringe is sufficient to keep man alive. This narrow fringe is man's self-reflection, where man is irremediably caught. From the book: '

By playing on our self-reflection, which is the only point of awareness left to us, the predators create flares of awareness that they proceed to consume in a ruthless, predatory fashion. They give us inane problems that force those flares of awareness to rise, and in this manner they keep us alive in order for them to be fed with the energetic flare of our pseudoconcerns.'

From Don Juan:

'[The sorcerers of ancient Mexico] reasoned that man must have been a complete being at one point, with stupendous insights, feats of awareness that are mythological legends nowadays. And then everything seems to disappear, and we have now a sedated man." […]

what we have against us is not a simple predator. It is very smart, and organized. It follows a methodical system to render us useless. Man, the magical being that he is destined to be, is no longer magical. He's an average piece of meat. There are no more dreams for man but the dreams of an animal who is being raised to become a piece of meat: trite, conventional, imbecilic." […]

"The only alternative left for mankind," he continued, "is discipline. Discipline is the only deterrent. But by discipline I don't mean harsh routines. I don't mean waking up every morning at five-thirty and throwing cold water on yourself until you're blue. Sorcerers understand discipline as the capacity to face with serenity odds that are not included in our expectations. For them, discipline is an art: the art of facing infinity without flinching, not because they are strong and tough but because they are filled with awe.') "Sorcerers say that discipline makes the glowing coat of awareness unpalatable to the flyer," […]

"The grand trick of those sorcerers of ancient times, was to burden the flyers' mind with discipline. They found out that if they taxed the flyers' mind with inner silence, the foreign installation would flee, giving to any one of the practitioners involved in this maneuver the total certainty of the mind's foreign origin. The foreign installation comes back, I assure you, but not as strong, and a process begins in which the fleeing of the flyers' mind becomes routine, until one day it flees permanently. A sad day indeed! That's the day when you have to rely on your own devices, which are nearly zero. There's no one to tell you what to do. There's no mind of foreign origin to dictate the imbecilities you're accustomed to. "My teacher, the nagual Julian, used to warn all his disciples," don Juan continued, "that this was the toughest day in a sorcerer's life, for the real mind that belongs to us, the sum total of our experience, after a lifetime of domination has been rendered shy, insecure, and shifty. Personally, I would say that the real battle of sorcerers begins at that moment. The rest is merely preparation." "The flyers' mind flees forever," he said, "when a sorcerer succeeds in grabbing on to the vibrating force that holds us together as a conglomerate of energy fields. If a sorcerer maintains that pressure long enough, the flyers' mind flees in defeat. And that's exactly what you are going to do: hold on to the energy that binds you together."

Castaneda's account is on many points in substantial agreement with other tradition. We will briefly compare Castaneda with other sources discussed in this work:

The invasion of the predators would roughly correspond to the Fall. The Cassiopaeans have spoken of man finding himself cut off from former capabilities, as if amnesiac after a head injury, all this reflected in scrambling of DNA. The choice of increased physicality and service to self essentially amounts to even inviting the predator's mind into one's own.

Gurdjieff's 'organ kundabuffer' approaches the theme from another angle. There, the organ is forcibly installed into man in order to generally anesthetize him against reality and see the insignificant as great and the great as insignificant. This event too is depicted as taking place at the very beginning of man's existence on Earth, in response to a cataclysmic situation. Again, we have radical shift of perception and cataclysm together.'

In Beelzebub's Tales we have the constant theme of vibrations being required of the Earth. When man would not produce the right quality consciously, nature shifted the circumstance to cater for accidental shocks which would provide the required amount of flashes of awareness, or 'higher hydrogens.' The predator feeds man problems and crises upon crisis. {Castaneda] 'Planetary influences arrange for wars and catastrophies simply to obtain required vibrations' [Gurdjieff] Man may also play his role consciously, at least in theory, and thus be free from these arbitrary influences and serve the universe in another manner, suggests Gurdjieff.

Man is born sane and spoiled by contemporary education, inculcated with the 'values' of ego, hypocrisy, self-calming, empty wiseacrings, vanity and self-love. [Gurdjieff] When man reaches adult age, only the fringe of the glowing coat of awareness is left, barely covering the toes. This fringe is the center of self-reflection, the only awareness left to man. [Castaneda]

The Cassiopaeans and Ra speak of man's consciousness being food in many places. In order not to be food, one needs to change internally. These sources call this alignment with STO and objectivity, Castaneda calls this discipline, impeccability, being a warrior fighting to be free. Gurdjieff calls this objective reason, Impartiality, acquiring being and objective conscience and being as a man ought to be.

The parallels go further. Castaneda's sorcerer, having caused the predator's mind to flee, is akin to Gurdjieff's description of the real I, when it is first glimpsed through the veil of personality. It is small, insecure, unsteady and shifting. Nurturing this and bringing the personality into unity through fusing it with shocks is a characteristic of all the paths discussed here.

As to the practical issue of how this discipline is practiced, it's probably appropriate to read Mme. De Salzmann's essay on the First Initiation once again:

'You will see that in life you get back exactly what you put in. Your life is the mirror of what you are, it is your image. You are passive, blind, demanding. You take all, you accept all, without ever feeling indebted. Your attitude towards the world and towards life is the attitude of one who has the right to demand and take. Of one who doesn't need to pay or gain. You believe that all things are due to you, only because it's you! All your blindness is there. It doesn't catch your attention. It is however what, in you, separates a world from another.

You have no measure to measure yourself up. You live only between 'I like it' and 'I don't like it'. Which means that you have appreciation only for yourself. You do not allow for anything above you - theoretically or logically maybe, but not in reality. This is why you are demanding and keep on thinking that everything should be cheap, and you can afford to pay for anything you want. You don't recognize anything above yourself, or outside yourself or inside yourself. This is why, I repeat, you have no measure and live only to satisfy your whims.

Yes, your 'self appreciation' makes you blind! It is the biggest obstacle to a new life. One has to be able to pass this obstacle, this threshold, before one can go further. It is the test that separates the 'chaff' from the 'wheat' in people. No matter how intelligent, how endowed, how brilliant a man is, if he doesn't change his opinion about himself, he will be lost for inner development, for the work based on self-knowledge, for a real evolution. He will stay as he is all his life.

The first demand, the first condition, the first test for he who wants to work on himself is to change his appreciation of himself. He cannot just imagine, or simply believe or think, but actually *see* things in himself that he did not see before, really see them. Never will his opinion about himself change as long as he will not see inside himself. And in order to see, he has _to learn_ to see: it is the first initiation of man into self-knowledge.

Before anything else, he has to know what to look for. Once he knows it, he has to make efforts, focus his attention, look constantly, with tenacity. By maintaining his attention on it, by not forgetting about looking, one day he may see. If he sees once, he can see a second time, and if this is repeated he cannot ignore seeing. This is the state to look for in our observation; it is from this that the true desire, the desire to evolve, will be born; from cold we're becoming hot, vibrating; we will be deeply touched by our reality.

Today we have only the illusion of what we are. We overestimate ourselves. We do not respect ourselves. To respect myself, I have to have recognized in me a part which is higher than the other parts, and to which I show respect by the attitude I have towards it. In this way I will respect myself. And my relationships with others will be ruled by the same respect.

We have to understand that all other measuring units, talent, erudition, culture, genius, are changing units, units of detail. The only true measure, never changing, objective, the only real one, it is the measure of inner vision. 'I' see - 'I' see myself - and you have measured. With a higher, real part, you have measured a lower one, also real. And this measure, defining by itself the respective roles of each part, will bring you to self-respect. But you will see it is not easy. And it is not a bargain. One has to pay a lot. For the bad payers, the lazy, the losers, no chance. One must pay, pay a lot, pay immediately and pay in advance. Pay from oneself. With sincere efforts, wholeheartedly, without expectations. The more you will be willing to pay without reticence, without cheating, without falsity, the more you will receive. And from then on, you will meet your true nature. And you will see all the tricks, all the dishonesty it goes to in order to avoid paying cash. Because you have to pay with all the gratuitous theories, all the deeply rooted convictions, all the prejudice, all conventions, all 'I like it' and 'I don't like it'. Without bargaining, honestly, not just make believe. Trying to see while using fake money.

Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you think you are, that you overestimate yourself, therefore that you lie to yourself. That you lie to yourself always, every moment, all day long, your whole life. That the lie rules you to the extent that you cannot control it anymore. You are its victim. You lie everywhere. Your relationships with others, lies. The education you' re giving, your petty conventions, lies. Your learning, lies. Your theories, your art, lies. Your social life, your family life, all lies. And what you think of yourself, lies too.

But you don't stop from what you're doing or from what you're saying, because you believe in you. You have to stop inside and observe. Observe without prejudice. While accepting for a time this idea of lies. And if you observe in this manner, paying of yourself, without self-pity, by giving all your false riches for one moment of reality, maybe someday you'll see all of a sudden something you have never saw in you before. You will see are someone else from what you thought you are. You will see that you are two. One that is not, but takes the place and play the other's role. And the one that is, but so weak, so inconsistent, that just brought forth it disappears immediately. It cannot stand the lies. The smallest lie kills it. It doesn't fight, it does not resist, it is vanquished in advance. Learn to look until you have observed the difference between your two natures, until you have seen the lies, the impostor in you. When you will see your two natures, that day, in you, the truth will be born.'

Regarding this process of accepting for awhile that all you do is lie - mainly to yourself - and that you must learn to stop inside and observe yourself, observe without prejudice, in order to see the difference between your true self and the Flyer's mind, the buffers and multiple *I*s, consider this:

Gurdjieff said:
"When a man comes to realize the necessity not only for self-study and self¬observation but also for work on himself with the object of changing himself, the character of his self-observation must change. He has so far studied the details of the work of the centers, trying only to register this or that phenomenon, to be an impartial witness. He has studied the work of the machine. Now he must begin to see himself, that is to say, to see, not separate details, not the work of small wheels and levers, but to see everything taken together as a whole—the whole of himself such as others see him.

"For this purpose a man must learn to take, so to speak, 'mental photographs' of himself at different moments of his life and in different emotional states: and not photographs of details, but photographs of the whole as he saw it. In other words these photographs must contain simultaneously everything that a man can see in himself at a given moment. Emotions, moods, thoughts, sensations, postures, movements, tones of voice, facial expressions, and so on. If a man succeeds in seizing interesting moments for these photographs he will very soon collect a whole album of pictures of himself which, taken together, will show him quite clearly what he is. But it is not so easy to learn how to take these photographs at the most interesting and characteristic moments, how to catch characteristic postures, characteristic facial expressions, characteristic emotions, and characteristic thoughts. If the photographs are taken successfully and if there is a sufficient number of them, a man will see that his usual conception of himself, with which he has lived from year to year, is very far from reality.

"Instead of the man he had supposed himself to be he will see quite another man. This 'other' man is himself and at the same time not himself. It is he as other people know him, as he imagines himself and as he appears in his actions, words, and so on; but not altogether such as he actually is. ...

"So long as a man takes himself as one person he will never move from where he is. His work on himself starts from the moment when he begins to feel two men in himself. One is passive and the most it can do is to register or observe what is happening to it. The other, which calls itself 'I,' is active, and speaks of itself in the first person, is in reality only 'Ouspensky,' 'Petrov' or 'Zakharov.'

"This is the first realization that a man can have. Having begun to think correctly he very soon sees that he is completely in the power of his 'Ouspensky,' 'Petrov,' or 'Zakharov.' No matter what he plans or what he intends to do or say, it is not 'he,' not 'I,' that will carry it out, do or say it, but his 'Ouspensky' 'Petrov,' or 'Zakharov,' and of course they will do or say it, not in the way 'I' would have done or said it, but in their own way with their own shade of meaning, and often this shade of meaning completely changes what 'I' wanted to do.

"From this point of view there is a very definite danger arising from the very first moment of self-observation. It is 'I' who begins self-observation, but it is immediately taken up and continued by 'Ouspensky,' 'Zakharov,' or 'Petrov.' But 'Ouspensky' 'Zakharov,' or 'Petrov' from the very first steps introduces a slight alteration into this self-observation, an alteration which seems to be quite unimportant but which in reality fundamentally alters the whole thing.

"Let us suppose, for example, that a man called Ivanov hears the description of this method of self-observation. He is told that a man must divide himself, 'he' or 'I' on one side and 'Ouspensky,' 'Tetrov,' or 'Zakharov' on the other side. And he divides himself literally as he hears it. 'This is I,' he says, 'and that is "Ouspensky," "Petrov," or "Zakharov."' He will never say 'Ivanov.' He finds that unpleasant, so he will inevitably use somebody else's surname or Christian name. Moreover he calls 'I' what he likes in himself or at any rate what he considers to be strong, while he calls 'Ouspensky,' 'Petrov,' or 'Zakharov' what he does not like or what he considers to be weak. On this basis he begins to reason in many ways about himself, quite wrongly of course from the very beginning, since he has already deceived himself in the most important point and has taken not his real self, that is, he has taken, not Ivanov, but the imaginary 'Ouspensky,' 'Petrov' or 'Zakharov.'
...

"But when a man understands his helplessness in the face of 'Ouspensky' his attitude towards himself and towards 'Ouspensky' in him ceases to be either indifferent or unconcerned.

"Self-observation becomes observation of 'Ouspensky' A man understands that he is not 'Ouspensky,' that 'Ouspensky' is nothing but the mask he wears, the part that he unconsciously plays and which unfortunately he cannot stop playing, a part which rules him and makes him do and say thousands of stupid things, thousands of things which he would never do or say himself.

"If he is sincere with himself he feels that he is in the power of 'Ouspensky' and at the same time he feels that he is not 'Ouspensky.'

"He begins to be afraid of 'Ouspensky,' begins to feel that he is his 'enemy.' No matter what he would like to do, everything is intercepted and altered by 'Ouspensky.' 'Ouspensky' is his 'enemy.' 'Ouspensky's' desires, tastes, sympathies, antipathies, thoughts, opinions, are either opposed to his own views, feelings, and moods, or they have nothing in common with them. And, at the same time, 'Ouspensky' is his master. He is the slave. He has no will of his own. He has no means of expressing his desires because whatever he would like to do or say would be done for him by 'Ouspensky.'

"On this level of self-observation a man must understand that his whole aim is to free himself from 'Ouspensky.' And since he cannot in fact free himself from 'Ouspensky,' because he is himself, he must therefore master 'Ouspensky' and make him do, not what the 'Ouspensky' of the given moment wants, but what he himself wants to do. From being the master, 'Ouspensky' must become the servant.

"The first stage of work on oneself consists in separating oneself from 'Ouspensky' mentally, in being separated from him in actual fact, in keeping apart from him. But the fact must be borne in mind that the whole attention must be concentrated upon 'Ouspensky' for a man is unable to explain what he himself really is. But he can explain 'Ouspensky' to himself and with this he must begin, remembering at the same time that he is not 'Ouspensky.'

"The most dangerous thing in this case is to rely on one's own judgment. If a man is lucky he may at this time have someone near him who can tell him where he is and where 'Ouspensky' is. But he must moreover trust this person, because he will undoubtedly think that he understands everything himself and that he knows where he is and where 'Ouspensky' is. And not only in relation to himself but in relation also to other people will he think that he knows and sees their 'Ouspenskys.' All this is of course self-deception. At this stage a man can see nothing either in relation to himself or to others. The more convinced he is that he can, the more he is mistaken.

"But if he can be even to a slight extent sincere with himself and really wants to know the truth, then he can find an exact and infallible basis for judging rightly first about himself and then about other people. But the whole point lies in being sincere with oneself. And this is by no means easy. People do not understand that sincerity must be learned. They imagine that to be sincere or not to be sincere depends upon their desire or decision. But how can a man be sincere with himself when in actual fact he sincerely does not see what he ought to see in himself? Someone has to show it to him. And his attitude towards the person who shows him must be a right one, that is, such as will help him to see what is shown him and not, as often happens, hinder him if he begins to think that he already knows better.

"This is a very serious moment in the work. A man who loses his direction at this moment will never find it again afterwards. It must be remembered that man such as he is does not possess the means of distinguishing 'I' and 'Ouspensky' in himself. Even if he tries to, he will lie to himself and invent things, and he will never see himself as he really is. It must be understood that without outside help a man can never see himself.
 
I read a great article on sott.net today (anybody ever read sott?) that I'd like to include in this thread:

Moving Out of Emotional Captivity: Are You the Driver or the Driven?

Therese J. Borchard
Psych Central
Sat, 12 Sep 2009

In his book Eastern Wisdom for Western Minds, Victor M. Parachin tells a Japanese tale about how powerful our emotions can be, and how we must manage them, not vice versa. He writes:

A Japanese samurai warrior visited a Zen master, seeking answers to questions that had plagued him for some time.

"What is it you want to know?" asked the Zen master.

"Tell me, sir, do heaven and hell exist?"

"Ha!" laughed the Zen master in a contemptuous tone. "What makes you think you could understand such things? You are only an educated, brutish soldier. Don't waste my time with your ridiculous questions."

The samurai warrior froze in shock. No one spoke to a samurai that way. It meant instant death. Increasing the tension, the Zen master went on, "Are you too stupid to understand what I just said? Stop wasting my time and get out of here!" he shouted.

The samurai exploded with rage. As quick as lightening, his hand grabbed the sword, sweeping it over his head to get ready for the kill. In the split second before the sword descended to cut off the Zen master's head, the samurai heard him say, "This is the gate to hell."

Again, the samurai froze in astonishment. He got the message. It was his own rage that brought hell to him. The Zen master - as is customary among the greatest of Zen teachers - risked his life to make that fact inescapably clear. Pausing and then breathing deeply, the samurai replaced his sword. He bowed humbly, filled with respect and even awe.

"And this," smiled the Zen master, "is the gate to heaven."

This old story is all about moving out of emotional captivity. Many people are not the drivers of their emotions. They are driven by them; they are emotionally out of control. This is a significant personality weakness and a great danger. Uncontrolled anger and rage are major impediments to enlightenment.

Buddhism compares untamed emotions to a forest fire that roars through a person, consuming all that is good, noble, and virtuous. In Christianity, anger is cited as one of the seven "deadly" sins.

The Zen master is quite correct: an uncontrolled emotion is the gate to hell. The taming and directing of emotion is the gate to heaven.
 
shijing said:
Hi The Spoon --

The Spoon said:
So yes absolutely I want to stop thinking emotionally, but I am highly resistant to submitting to this group....which I think is where I'm blocked - valuing my own opinion over that of others, and "trust issues" appear as a justification for that preference.

I'm now asking myself "What really happened there?" Stuck...I feel...apart from this group. My earliest postings did not receive the response I wanted (ie Unconditional Acceptance / Feed me, Seymour) and what I "heard" was: "You are fundamentally flawed and do not know what you're talking about. Go away and come back when you've read Everything Twice."

So while I'm still here (and making a half hearted attempt to 'fit in') because I recognise that there's so much of value to learn, I'm also kicking out against that (I felt) rejection - which came out as soon as Laura said (I heard) "we're not going to be so critical". And then the thing is, this forum is saying that I am (we all are) fundamentally flawed. I would prefer "we are all fundamentally fine" but that's just not how it is, is it?

Based on what you have written, particularly the bolded parts, it strikes me that you are having a fundamental struggle between the way that you wish things were and the way that they actually are -- in other words, a classic struggle between subjectivity and objectivity. The impression that I get is that you are going through a process similar to that which happens when you have been on a junk-food diet and decided to try a healthy diet instead. There are enough reasons which have accumulated to make an effort to switch, but at first the new diet doesn't taste all that good even though it is much more nutritious, and you crave the comfort of the old diet and may look for reasons to justify going back to it.

Although you haven't mentioned specifics, you have alluded to the fact that there are other forums of learning you participate in which are much more 'feel-good', and you are provided a much more comfortable view of reality and perhaps even more comfortable direct feedback. You receive the message there (wherever "there" is) that "we are all fundamentally fine", which probably also requires a minimum of work on your part, and you are probably not required to submit to anyone or anything directly, leaving your ego intact. In the present analogy, this is all junk-food, but it is a lot more pleasant to receive than the alternative, and like real junk-food, the negative effects of a steady diet of subjective feel-good philosophy don't really show up until much later down the road. Nevertheless, one will feel compelled to defend it, largely on an emotional level although one may try to convert it into intellectual rationalization.

The only real aid (for any of us) in this struggle that I see is to, as objectively as possible, judge the tree by the fruits. Are the founders and leaders of this forum benefitting at the expense of the members, or do they give to them and help them grow? Are the forum members suffering from their participation here or are their lives being enriched? What is the bird's-eye view over time -- say the last year, or last two years? Have things degenerated or progressed? When you feel confident in your answers to these kinds of questions, it is much easier to evaluate your own position as well as the accusations of outsiders who have never sought to struggle with the actual facts.

Interesting, somehow this also reminds me of
"Cypher" from the Matrix: "Ignorance is bliss"?

FWIW,
Dan
 
Back
Top Bottom