Alexander Davidis: Another "Puzzling" Psychopathy Expert?

I don't think there's really much of anything for me to add, but I personally am not sad to see him go as I haven't seen him contribute anything positive here since I've been a member. I haven't seen him listen to any feedback (or really listen much at all, actually) and clearly, based on his last post, he was just here for himself, what he could get, and to dream that he was Working and can Do.

Enjoy the dream, Fifth Way.
 
Foxx said:
I don't think there's really much of anything for me to add, but I personally am not sad to see him go as I haven't seen him contribute anything positive here since I've been a member. I haven't seen him listen to any feedback (or really listen much at all, actually) and clearly, based on his last post, he was just here for himself, what he could get, and to dream that he was Working and can Do.

Enjoy the dream, Fifth Way.

I think he hasn't really been a member for quite some time. When you boil down his participation it does look like that he got what he wanted a number of years ago and then maintained minimal contact afterward. I took a look at his interactions with other members on the forum over the past several years, and he's pretty much kept to threads that involve himself - i.e. very little (if any?) networking on other people's threads about their problems, situations etc. There was also a different group project that I worked on where Alexander was 'involved', but I don't recall any actual involvement from him.

I do understand that people can be busy at various times in their lives, and sometimes a lot can be happening that can pull our attention away. But life and its natural struggles happen to everyone. It's easy to allow 'being too busy' to become who you are. It comes down to showing the universe what you value, I think.
 
Robin said:
Sounds to me like AD/FW paid a whole lot of 'lip-service' to doing the Work in order to glean what he needed from the forum not just to promote himself as a "forerunner" in psychopathy, but perhaps to keep the network in his 'back pocket' for any future money making idea/project. As stated in an earlier post within this thread, IMO, his selfish, manipulative behavior very much represents someone who is "stuck" in the cycle of abuse [externally] (tension building/communication breakdown; incident/blaming/threats; reconciliation/apology; calm/honeymoon phase) and in a cycle of mechanical suffering [internally] which serves, either knowingly or unknowingly, his "false personality" including the promotion of his short term goals.

To break this cycle of mechanical suffering, AD/FW must first realize the type of suffering he is experiencing. Gurdjieff states in ISOTM:

I think it's really important to consider the idea that the vast, vast majority of human beings truly isn't capable of "breaking this cycle" as you put it because at the end of the day, the vast majority does not want to. Their lives are not so miserable, after all. They've not tired of the banquet of life and the myriad of distractions, pursuits and punishments. So, to advise what you've advised is completely lost on such people. In fact, I'd say that anyone you have to say such things to wouldn't get it anyway because those who are ready for something other than mechanical life are so fed up, so finished, so bankrupted by "normal" life that nothing can stop them from forging another path. They are seeking so desperately for the fresh air of life that nothing can stop them, not even failure after failure until they find the truth.

So, I know there is a tendency to want to lay out a textbook description of how it "should work" but it's usually helpful to first consider the individual and whether or not they are where one must be to even begin.

I am sad for Fifth Way, in the way that I am sad for the vast majority of humanity, because I know that none of this is theoretical and that he has a very rough road ahead of him until he comes to this understanding on his own and finally tires of all the illusion, all the roles he plays and the mess of it all - all that is 3D life. I doubt he'll get there in this lifetime, but I've been wrong before, and he has almost an entire species to share that experience with. Which, come to think of it, ultimately makes me sad for all of us since there are so few human beings ready to be and do something other than what they've always been and always done. That's the mechanical nature of "man" and why Gurdjieff said that "man" has not changed at all in thousands of years - and I suppose that is why the cosmos must clean house.
 
anart said:
... vast majority of human beings truly isn't capable of "breaking this cycle" as you put it because at the end of the day, the vast majority does not want to.

I haven't yet had the experience of you being imprecise with your writing, anart. Are you OK?
 
Hello Jones,
Just a fwiw, the phrase is not wrong IMHO:
_http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/majority.html said:
“Majority” is one of those words that can be either singular or plural. Common sense works pretty well in deciding which. If you mean the word to describe a collection of individuals, then the word should be treated as plural: “The majority of e-mail users are upset about the increase in spam.” If the word is used to describe a collective group, then consider it singular: “A 90% majority is opposed to scheduling the next meeting at 6:00 A.M.”

Edit: So, "the majority isn't capable of" and, "the majority does not want to.. ".
 
anart said:
I think it's really important to consider the idea that the vast, vast majority of human beings truly isn't capable of "breaking this cycle" as you put it because at the end of the day, the vast majority does not want to. Their lives are not so miserable, after all. They've not tired of the banquet of life and the myriad of distractions, pursuits and punishments. So, to advise what you've advised is completely lost on such people. In fact, I'd say that anyone you have to say such things to wouldn't get it anyway because those who are ready for something other than mechanical life are so fed up, so finished, so bankrupted by "normal" life that nothing can stop them from forging another path. They are seeking so desperately for the fresh air of life that nothing can stop them, not even failure after failure until they find the truth.

So, I know there is a tendency to want to lay out a textbook description of how it "should work" but it's usually helpful to first consider the individual and whether or not they are where one must be to even begin.

Thank you anart for your advice concerning my tendency to describe/state "how it should work". :)

Re-reading my description in light of your advice, I think it could also be viewed as "giving" when no one was "asking" thereby infringing upon another's free will. :-[ And alas, the discovery of a couple more forms of mechanical thinking for me to reflect upon and Work on.

With that said, I will keep your advice in mind when posting in the future.
 
mkrnhr said:
Hello Jones,
Just a fwiw, the phrase is not wrong IMHO:
_http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/majority.html said:
“Majority” is one of those words that can be either singular or plural. Common sense works pretty well in deciding which. If you mean the word to describe a collection of individuals, then the word should be treated as plural: “The majority of e-mail users are upset about the increase in spam.” If the word is used to describe a collective group, then consider it singular: “A 90% majority is opposed to scheduling the next meeting at 6:00 A.M.”

Edit: So, "the majority isn't capable of" and, "the majority does not want to.. ".

Ha. How about that?! I know that I have heard and read similar sentences as as those in your example. What I don't know is why anarts statements seemed to jump out at me as being incorrectly constructed.

Hang on, I take that back - yes I do know. I related 'isn't' to 'human beings' rather than 'majority'. I've taken 'human beings' as being a collection of individuals and so automatically felt compelled to apply the plural.

So from your example:
"The majority of e-mail users are upset..."
And anarts statement:
"..vast majority of human beings truly isn't capable...

I've also assumed that whether 'majority' is treated as plural or singular was dependent on the placement of the variant of the 'verb to be'. In other words, if the 'verb to be' was directly after 'majority' then it was singular as in:

"“A 90% majority is opposed to scheduling the next meeting at 6:00 A.M.”

In the above a collection of individuals wasn't named or defined.
 
jones said:
I haven't yet had the experience of you being imprecise with your writing, anart. Are you OK?

Absolutely, and it wasn't imprecise.


Jones said:
Ha. How about that?! I know that I have heard and read similar sentences as as those in your example. What I don't know is why anarts statements seemed to jump out at me as being incorrectly constructed.

Yep, majority is the subject of the sentence and it is not plural in this case, it is a singular subject.

For future reference, though, I am human, so I do make mistakes - just not in this case - and just because I make mistakes doesn't mean that I'm not 'okay' - just human. ;-)
 
Jones said:
Hang on, I take that back - yes I do know. I related 'isn't' to 'human beings' rather than 'majority'. I've taken 'human beings' as being a collection of individuals and so automatically felt compelled to apply the plural.

Not to go too far off on a grammar tangent, but the subject in the sentence that determines whether a verb is singular or plural will never be in a prepositional phrase, ie ignore clauses that start with 'of' 'at' 'in' etc.

So you would read the following as:

"The majority of e-mail users are upset..."
And anarts statement:
"..vast majority of human beings truly isn't capable...

I think anart's statement would work using aren't or isn't.
 
anart said:
I find it fascinating that this thread has been taken off topic by grammar.

Seriously. Jones, considering the legalistic nitpicking and the subtle dig about anart being 'imprecise', I'm wondering if it isn't actually you who seems to have an issue here. What's the deal?
 
Heimdallr said:
Seriously. Jones, considering the legalistic nitpicking and the subtle dig about anart being 'imprecise', I'm wondering if it isn't actually you who seems to have an issue here. What's the deal?

Considering his last post, I hope he won't be picking up any stones to throw on that topic anytime soon. ;)

Foxx said:
I point this out because you seem a little overly optimistic to me that he can do the right thing, when his track record for doing so hasn't been very good for a while--and, of course, such wishful thinking for people to do the right thing who haven't demonstrated much of an interest in doing so can be very dangerous.

Foxx, I understand completely what you mean when you say it could be dangerous to "wishful think" someone will "do the right thing". The context is important and has to be kept in scope in this case. For example, I would never think the same thing or even say the same thing to someone, if they were in an abusive relationship. The reason being is that the consequences would be much more dire.

In this case, it is about Alex facing something he just will not face. A barrier that he knows is there, which has been shown to him by many people in the network who were in that exact spot before and have gone beyond it, and yet, he won't or can't get over it. The latter part, the "can't" is an unknown, and is where the hope lies.

Nobody's holding their breath on this. It's up to him to carry his own load. When he grows up and can, at the very least do this, than maybe he can think about helping others. It's what Laura and many others in the network have tried to point out.

In essence, he's trying to take a short cut by trying to help out or "help others" by his efforts in order to make "good", i.e. "I helped put out the message, I did good, I'm OK!"

It doesn't work that way: his short cut is a dead end. If anything, people here are trying to show him that he will lose months/years only to delay the inevitable task that is in front of him. It would be a huge disservice to him to string him along and let him think he did good.

Anart already nailed it in her post:

anart said:
I think it's really important to consider the idea that the vast, vast majority of human beings truly isn't capable of "breaking this cycle" as you put it because at the end of the day, the vast majority does not want to. Their lives are not so miserable, after all. They've not tired of the banquet of life and the myriad of distractions, pursuits and punishments. So, to advise what you've advised is completely lost on such people.

In fact, I'd say that anyone you have to say such things to wouldn't get it anyway because those who are ready for something other than mechanical life are so fed up, so finished, so bankrupted by "normal" life that nothing can stop them from forging another path. They are seeking so desperately for the fresh air of life that nothing can stop them, not even failure after failure until they find the truth.

So, I know there is a tendency to want to lay out a textbook description of how it "should work" but it's usually helpful to first consider the individual and whether or not they are where one must be to even begin.

I am sad for Fifth Way, in the way that I am sad for the vast majority of humanity, because I know that none of this is theoretical and that he has a very rough road ahead of him until he comes to this understanding on his own and finally tires of all the illusion, all the roles he plays and the mess of it all - all that is 3D life. I doubt he'll get there in this lifetime, but I've been wrong before, and he has almost an entire species to share that experience with. Which, come to think of it, ultimately makes me sad for all of us since there are so few human beings ready to be and do something other than what they've always been and always done. That's the mechanical nature of "man" and why Gurdjieff said that "man" has not changed at all in thousands of years - and I suppose that is why the cosmos must clean house.

I've bolded that part up there because it is so very important. It's also an aspect that applies to me very much, and I cannot say enough how much empathy and will, and caring this network has for people who keep trying.

You never, NEVER see it this way when you're underneath the thumb that everybody else is telling you is pressing you down.

Your perspective changes in unforeseen ways when you let the fire burn down the chair you're sitting on, and you finally decide to stop putting out the fire (because you were afraid). Until your ass hits the ground in the smoldering remains, you can't pick yourself up with a new understanding and perspective.
 
Azur said:
In essence, he's trying to take a short cut by trying to help out or "help others" by his efforts in order to make "good", i.e. "I helped put out the message, I did good, I'm OK!"

Well, maybe I'm missing something but I don't see FW "trying to help out in order to make good" or anything like that. If he had helped out, even if only to make him look/feel good, it would have been better because objectively, he had done something for the network. However, that has not happened for a long time as far as I can see (although there are many behind-the-scene projects that I don't know about). What I see is his piggyback on the network to gain the reputation as a psychopathy expert and then going alone out there to get an audience to serve his narcissistic needs. By going alone that way, he becomes a "sitting duck", a tool in the hands of COINTELPRO agents to bring disinformation to the field of psychopathy. Even if he's not a conscious disinfo agent, the end result would be the same had it not been stopped/exposed.

FWIW.
 
Heimdallr said:
anart said:
I find it fascinating that this thread has been taken off topic by grammar.

Seriously. Jones, considering the legalistic nitpicking and the subtle dig about anart being 'imprecise', I'm wondering if it isn't actually you who seems to have an issue here. What's the deal?

Well I’m often coming up against realisations about myself – some of which are not comfortable at all. I can feel embarrassed if I'm found to be wrong, and frightened if my motivations are called into question, even if I believe I'm doing something harmless.

However, I don't believe that I was experiencing an issue as I wrote my initial post in this thread.

There have been a few ‘R U OK?’ messages on fb. It’s a campaign here encouraging people to check in with others. I guess since reading those messages I was prompted to reach out. And I’d seriously not yet experienced what I percieved to be imprecision in anarts posts – to me it seemed something different to the norm. I don’t believe it hurts to check if something seems different and I certainly didn't mean to imply that anart was less than human.

As has been pointed out the imprecision was mine. I apologise if it seems that I was nit picking. Though I believe I have addressed and owned my misunderstandings and pointed out where I’d made assumptions in my previous post. I will admit that I was a little confused about ‘majority’ as a subject since it seemed to me that it made people ‘objects’ and I was uncomfortable with that notion despite the fact that, in this instance, they are grammatical terms.

Azur said:
Heimdallr said:
Seriously. Jones, considering the legalistic nitpicking and the subtle dig about anart being 'imprecise', I'm wondering if it isn't actually you who seems to have an issue here. What's the deal?

Considering his last post, I hope he won't be picking up any stones to throw on that topic anytime soon. ;)

Despite what I've just said I will correct this though.
'Her' and 'she' :D

anart said:
I find it fascinating that this thread has been taken off topic by grammar.

Back to topic and apologies again.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom