Another instant 'attack'?

[Craig]

Nina, Gurdjieff used it frequently during his talks - see "Wartime Meetings" for example. Generally, it refers to the false personality, when it hinders the aim towards consciousness.

 

[Ruth]

Glad this is resolved. So Saman has an inner dog and Tschai has an inner Irishman. So Saman can say "Down boy!" to it. Tschai can say"Sit down and have another Guinness!" I guess mine may be an inner college professor. I would have to say, "Get down off that podium and shut up!" :)

Ah thats so funny! The thing is, I don't see you as a college professor type at all, more like a cowboy in check shirt with cowboy boots and a horse called Ned .... 'giddy-up'... :)

 

[Saman]

Hi Nina, All. If you are wondering why I use this term, I originally thougt of it while reflecting and writing in a discussion on Message 23136 on the CassChat forum:

[...]
"Mirth. Think of it this way for a moment. If you wanted to teach your
'dog' a new 'trick', would "you" really spank it in cruelty, or would
YOU [italic] be firm and yet gentle with your 'dog' and allow it to
have the time it needs to naturally learn this new 'trick'. Sorry if I
am maybe getting a bit cryptic here, but I think you most likely
understand what I mean through this analogy. "
[...]

Then a while later, Ken confirmed this term, that is the 'inner dog', by posting on Message 24120 that G had used the term:

[...]
"I think that as long as we know what effect our praise may have on someone,
and if we know why we are doing it, then praise has its place. Indeed it is
about what you say... Common courtesies.

I think it takes a certain sensitivity to the overall situation, but
basically I'd say its a matter of common sense as to when it is appropriate to
use praise. I think giving praise is like giving meat to the 'dog' in us. I
understood Gurdjieff to say that there is nothing wrong with our inner dog,
just so long we keep it in the back yard when it wants to play. But if we depend
upon praise to progress in esoteric work then this can have the opposite
effect by making us forget about "second force," that is, our inner resistance,
and opening us up to subtle manipulation by nefarious forces from both lower (3D)
and higher (4D) levels of reality. The inevitable result of this manipulation will cause,
by law, subtle deflections of our thinking processes into "love and light" wishful thinking."
[...]


This was a confirmation for me of being on the right track in finding a way to strategically 'tame' this 'dog' due to the intutiveness of the term 'inner dog', and so I have started applying this term due to its relevance to my own experiences of "falls" and "ups".

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Why not simply apologize to Tschai and move on?

I did apologize and did so because it was evident that I had offended him with this manner of reply, which was not the motive. I did move on and continued to exchange thoughts with Peam, Anart, and others since they asking questions about why I percieved things the way I did in regards to some concepts. However, Esoquest and others can apparently see something here that I apparently am not seeing, and so, Laura brought up the issue with my commnunication with Tschai again in this thread, and this is why we are having this exchange at the moment.

Hi Saman, Tschai, others. I just wanted to make some comments.

Here's your apology, Saman:

I apologize Tschai for apparently offending you with this manner of approach.

This 'apology' is actually a defence of your own approach. It is saying "I'm sorry you got offended," not "I'm sorry for offending you." This is a subtle way of NOT apologizing, not taking responsibility (because we are still responsible for our inner dog). Perhaps, instead of defending your actions, you could reevaluate them, which is what I think you attempted to do by saying "I will no longer overly use this stric[t] pedagogical approach in order to not potentially communicate in a manner that could seem offputting and lofty to other individuals." Still, you didn't acknowledge that perhaps you didn't actually SEE if Tschai was asking or not. Sometimes a direct question is asking, sometimes it is not. Until we can discern correctly 100% of the time, I think it pays to be open to 'correcting our vision' in hindsight.

Tschai used some interesting language in his post describing your behaviour: 'doggedly,' 'let sleeping dogs lie.'

It was due to 'my', that is "Saman" the imposter, self importance that I, the REAL so to say Saman, failed to see and thus replied to you in an empathic-less manner that I did. [...] The trigger that unconsciously invoked 'my' self importance was in thinking that you were stating that the C's teachings were lofty when you stated

I think Tschai's 'dog' words were apt. To me, it seems that you are prematurely attempting to "fix" what you see in self-observation. As Graham posted elsewhere (http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1598.msg8546#msg8546), it's probably best to just observe what happens to your machine at first, and letting correction come naturally. Perhaps your rationalizations are influenced by your premature attempt that root out the predator/personality/inner dog. By doing this, you lose the shock of realizing that when the predator acts, YOU are the one identifying with it. It is not some completely separate entity possessing your body. This has been said by others here, in other words, osit.

However, you do have a unique voice, and I may be interpreting this incorrectly by a reading of your use of 'my' (note quote marks) and 'inner dog'.

 

[Saman]

I may be interpreting this incorrectly by a reading of your use of 'my' (note quote marks) and 'inner dog'.

Hi Harrison. I will try to clarifiy what I mean by 'my'. If there is a "fall" in relation to allowing the 'inner dog' to "run the show" within, then this "fall" is MY responsibility. When I say 'my' self importance, I don't mean that it is not MY responsibility, and [the] reason is the simple fact that it is MY "fall" in allowing the self importance of 'my' 'inner dog' to cause this "fall". Through experience, I have learned that if one does not separate MY from 'my' in this manner, then the [hyperdimensional] "Predator Mind" tends to make one be too hard on themselves and thus loose faith and 'self respect' in their own potential of learning to not "fall" again in the 'future'.

 

[Ruth]

Here's a rather 'cute' story from the New York Times. Its all about the 'dog wisperer'... sigh.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/arts/television/23mill.html?ex=1148702400&en=c20f9d814fa1de7f&ei=5087%0A
A little bit of light relief.

 

[Saman]

:) Cute indeed. I found this excerpt insightful in regards on how to tame the inner dog:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/arts/ ... ei=5087%0A :
[...]
Working with Americans and their dogs, he said, "I was surprised and a little confused by what I saw." Where he grew up, in Culiacan, Sinaloa, in Northwest Mexico, "everybody walks dogs," Mr. Millan said during a recent visit to New York. "But where I am from, the dog is always behind. Here the dog is always in front. I thought maybe you guys were doing it right and we were doing it wrong. Because to me America is the country where everybody is always doing it right. I thought you knew and we were wrong."

He quickly discovered: no. Americans were letting the dogs, rather than the humans, be the pack leaders, in almost every respect. "Americans work against Mother Nature, and that's why dogs don't listen to the general population of America," he said. "Why are dogs growing up on a farm much happier than a dog living in the city? Because on a farm, it gets to be a dog. And in the city they become a child, they become a husband, they become a soul mate. They become something the human wants before they are willing to do what is best for them."

So you could say that taming the inner dog is showing it that you are the pack leader within, and so because this does not go against it's nature since the inner dog likes to follow a capable pack leader, "the Infinite Sea of Potential" that is the "Mystic Female" of the right side of the brain is not ravished by the left side of the brain because the inner dog, the physical 3D STS consciousness container, is accepted as it naturally IS, while the left side of the brain is vigilant to make sure that pack leader within is sustained to be YOU and not the inner dog by building up on the intent to BE the "object of knowledge", and in order to BE the latter, YOU must DO and actualize in accord to what YOU potentially are deep within in regards to your "seed's" intrinsic FRV, and so, to make sure that YOU sustain and amplify this certain FRV by anticipating with vigilance the negative "fall" of this "up" FRV again in the nonlinear future, knowing full well that this will happen IF you are not [vigilant] of expecting the unexpected attacks of the hyperdimensional "Predator Mind."

Thanks for sharing that link Ruth! I might be on to something practical with these thoughts since I just finished re-reading Laura's http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave12a.htm

Moreover, I also think the movie "Eight Below" is a very cute movie as well, and also insightful in regards to taming the inner dog to be a "good boy" and loyal to your aim through learning step by step on how to strategically become a more capable pack leader within NOW with the intent to not "fall" as the pack leader in the nonlinear future - a gentle and yet firm balance of the right and left side of the brain working in union together, mirth :)

Well, I think I have got carried away with the italics to indicate [] abstract concepts, but I am experimenting here, and so, I will leave all the italics as they are for now. :)

 

[Guest]

Hi everyone:
Just a quick question in regards to the term "inner dog"...

...Gurdjieff used it frequently during his talks - see "Wartime Meetings" for example. Generally, it refers to the false personality, when it hinders the aim towards consciousness.

Perhaps your rationalizations are influenced by your premature attempt that root out the predator/personality/inner dog. By doing this, you lose the shock of realizing that when the predator acts, YOU are the one identifying with it. It is not some completely separate entity possessing your body. This has been said by others here, in other words, osit.

When I say 'my' self importance, I don't mean that it is not MY responsibility, and [the] reason is the simple fact that it is MY "fall" in allowing the self importance of 'my' 'inner dog' to cause this "fall". Through experience, I have learned that if one does not separate MY from 'my' in this manner, then the [hyperdimensional] "Predator Mind" tends to make one be too hard on themselves and thus loose faith and 'self respect' in their own potential of learning to not "fall" again in the 'future'.

The understanding of the term "inner dog" is important IMO, because therein we can understand our relationship to it. G's description of the false personality as an inner dog is accurate in principle, but even so it is still open to misunderstanding. Different cultures and people view dogs in different ways. Europeans with the possible exception of mediterranian cultures view dogs as loyal companions. Some oriental cultures view dogs as food (considering pigs to be far better companions). Middle Eastern peoples do not have a kind view regarding dogs, on the whole.

Gurdjieff is close to the Sufi tradition, and it seems there are derogatory connotations here. This is not wrong when we consider this aspect as a false self. Yet to really grok this falseness I think we need to be quite far along in our self observation practice and have a relatively stable presence of real self.

Until then the distinction is quite difficult between this "inner dog" as other and what we consider our identity. It is not farfetched to consider that at times the false personality (or a portion thereof) can point fingers to other portions of itself, identifying culprits while it hides behind self-appointed righteousness.

In other words, a thief can rat on another thief so he can go about his thieving unhindered, or the thief can place attention on his left hand so his right does the thieving. In this sense, there is still an identification with the false self, and at the same time one can feel secure in being sure one is not identified by singling a portion of it out to take the fall.

I think Harrison was pointing this out in his own words. The truth of the matter is that there IS a shock when the line between false and true self is really identified. It is a shock because the two are grafted together, and the boundary is blurred, so witnessing that boundary takes one into unfamiliar territory. Part of the shock is from the true self realizing it was fooled, and part is the false self reacting to it and trying to cover up the revelation which threatens its existence.

I believe if we try to avoid or over-rationalize the shock and the dissonance it creates, we can easily fall prey to the false self blurring the boundaries, and attempting to shift them over so that some of it at least is still associated with the person's identity.

I mentioned the following in a previous post on this thred

There are two extremes here. In one case we may consider predatory mind as something other and shunt a bit of our response-ability by viewing ourselves as innocent victims to its ways, and in the other we carry full blame, guilt and responsibility, and end up beating ourselves up instead of addressing what is really going on.

Saman I think tried to avoid falling into the second extreme. It seems experience taught the second extreme is a pitfall, and it is. However, I think by attempting to avoid it, he forgot the dangers of the of the first case, which is marked by unconscious identification with the false self as identity (masked by conscious dissociation from a portion of it), and hence being manipulated in one way while trying to avoid being manipulated in another.

The problem is, IMO, that theory precedes practive by too great a margin here. Sometimes when we fall, we try to plan things to avoid falling, and so end up falling elswhere. That is because this inner territory is unknown unless it is experienced, and teachings are always generalizations that cannot take into accound details of individual predisposition, and unique personal circumstance.

And here, indeed, the devil is in the details. I think a paradox here is that often when we try to avoid certain traps of inner manipulation, we end up increasing the probablity of falling into other traps. We are busy trying to do things in the manner we THINK is right instead of rolling up our sleeves and walking the talk to discover what's really up with our inner situation.

Considering the "inner dog" as an alien manipulator is theoretically correct, but until we have experienced the line and experienced the shock of the line, we are not qualified to come to conclusions regarding just who in us is the inner dog in any absolute sense. Thus we always have to be open to the possibility that we ARE the inner dog and observe based on that premise.

Eventually the line becomes clearer, the shocks less, and we become experienced in truly knowing the difference. Yet, there is a long path in gaining this experience. And we must backtrack often to truly prove to ourselves that our learning is solid here.

IMO, here is where I think Saman errs: You have said, Saman, that the predator mind tends to make one be too hard on themselves. The predator mind, however, works through deception, not some kind of brute force. It cannot make you do anything, and it is because of that that knowledge makes all the difference. It counters the deception.

And when you deny the possibility that it is the predator mind that is what you identify as yourself, then you deny that it is the predator mind that vibrates guilt to another portion of the predator mind. That explains how it can make you do anything, by making you identify with it, and fooling you into thinking you are not. It vibrates itself, and you go along because you think it is vibrating you.

In other words, why blame yourself for being one with the predator mind? Why think in terms of "fall"? Truth is, we are ALREADY fallen and wallowing at the bottom of the pit. As you can see, "falls" can become lessons and hence they are not "falls", but the process of actually rising up. We too often end up confusing the cramped state of our inner muscles, the pins and needles of getting feeling back into ourselves as a fall. That is just another deception of the false self.

If you think about it, self-blame is another form of self-importance. It's subjective drama not objective inner action. When there is dissonance the objective response is to observe it, recognize that you identify with it without qualifying that identification (in terms of implications), and learning about it to eventually see the unseen, which is where the false self ends, and the true one begins.

Until you really, consistently do so in a sustained manner, being objective means recognizing that you don't know where the dog ends and you begin, and thus you recognize that you are still at least partially identified with it. There is no blame in that. No blame in feeling psychopathic influences. Greater dissonance, however, comes in when we suddenly get shocked out of our slumber after our external environment has taken steps to point out how we are decieved.

This situation, however, can be avoided if we stay on the ball as much as we can so the lessons stay within. And because we know we are doing our best, even when circumstances and others point out things, there is no blame involved because we are dealing with something that was most likely necessary for our progress. Still, the more honest we are within the less we have to suffer without.

Personally, I do not like it when I make mistakes to the point an outer lesson intervenes. I much prefer to feel the impulses, and even be racked by the false self without bringing others into the picture, because then it is my conscious self that is at the forefront, right there in the field of experience, fully awake and acknoweldging things that need not bother others (because they obviously also have their hands full as do we all).

Then dealing with others becomes a much more balanced experience, and if there is a network it is strengthened because our knowledge is transferred without the need for crisis. The network can surely grow through crisis, but if it can also grow without them then the latter path is preferable.

And that is the whole point of inner work, to accelerate development beyond the velocity of the flow of events. In this way, we take our learning into our own hands, and out of the hands of fate (as much as we can, and in an ever increasing manner as we go along- ideally speaking).

And the only way THAT can work is with BRUTAL self honesty. Part of that self honesty is acknowledging the poossibility of lack of knowledge to oneself. Paradoxically, this acknowledgment opens the possibility for knowledge, and that opening is a protection in itself, for the simple fact that we are in a realistic relationship with what is going on. Knowing that you don't know can be as empowering as knowing that you do.

 

[Saman]

[...]
IMO, here is where I think Saman errs: You have said, Saman, that the predator mind tends to make one be too hard on themselves. The predator mind, however, works through deception, not some kind of brute force.

It cannot make you do anything, and it is because of that that knowledge makes all the difference. It counters the deception.

Well yes, I think this depends on what type of machine you have inherently. Some machines have a inherent tendency, an impulse, to "fight fire with fight" within, and so, the hyperdimensional "predator mind" does wish to persuade the owner of the inner dog to lash out through both its inherent[] agressiveness and self deception in order to have "two to tango". So knowledge and experience of both these types of manipulations blocks the draining of life force to the hyperdimensional "predator mind" above from the "predator mind" or say the inner dog below.

And when you deny the possibility that it is the predator mind that is what you identify as yourself, then you deny that it is the predator mind that vibrates guilt to another portion of the predator mind.

The animal man does not have a conscience, and so, it is [the] spiritual man that vibrates guilt through the inner dog, or say the physical body.

That explains how it can make you do anything, by making you identify with it, and fooling you into thinking you are not. It vibrates itself, and you go along because you think it is vibrating you.

You make it sound Esoquest as if it can fool me on a regular basis. Why is this?

In other words, why blame yourself for being one with the predator mind? Why think in terms of "fall"? Truth is, we are ALREADY fallen and wallowing at the bottom of the pit.

Because the "fall" is a repeating syndrome in terms of FRV, and "ups" are when we are at [a] certain frequency that is not as low as the FRV of the "fall" due to the soverienty of the spiritual man within, and not the animal man

As you can see, "falls" can become lessons and hence they are not "falls", but the process of actually rising up.

Yes. Why do think I quoted falls? To imply the very thing above. It's sort of like what MJ said back in a tv commercial years ago: "I fall and fall again, and that is why I succeed"

We too often end up confusing the cramped state of our inner muscles, the pins and needles of getting feeling back into ourselves as a fall. That is just another deception of the false self.

If you think about it, self-blame is another form of self-importance. It's subjective drama not objective inner action. When there is dissonance the objective response is to observe it, recognize that you identify with it without qualifying that identification (in terms of implications), and learning about it to eventually see the unseen, which is where the false self ends, and the true one begins.

Until you really, consistently do so in a sustained manner, being objective means recognizing that you don't know where the dog ends and you begin, and thus you recognize that you are still at least partially identified with it.

Yes, as long as YOU are still in this realm, you are naturally still partially identified with it because you fit in this slot

There is no blame in that. No blame in feeling psychopathic influences. Greater dissonance, however, comes in when we suddenly get shocked out of our slumber after our external environment has taken steps to point out how we are decieved.

The devil here is that there is no blame in simply feeling psychopathic influences, but there is a "blame" if we identif[y] and ACT out on such influences. This "blame" is the "flame" or say "fricition" within between the animal man and the spiritual man. Moreover, sometimes, external factors are the steps taken by the hyperdimensional predators to systematically decieve one, and not always the higher self taking steps to point out how one is self decieved. The[] key is to notice the pattern of the same type of attack, and to learn to block the variations of it in the future, and this through experience, is what I [am] learning to do, and that is to be extra vigilant when one is in the process of taming the inner dog in order to break it away from its life force draining chemically feel-good emotional habits, and thus, save energy for other practical uses. You see, if [we] strive to consciously not feed the hyperdimensional predators, they will systematically try to set up situations for you to loose faith in yourself and give up in attempting to break a habbit or addiction [or obsession], and so, if you allow them to decieve you and try to "fight fire with fire" within through that "foreign object", then those pains in the head and so forth, those feeling of constriction you have spoken of, have been effective [and affective] for their plan.

This situation, however, can be avoided if we stay on the ball as much as we can so the lessons stay within. And because we know we are doing our best, even when circumstances and others point out things, there is no blame involved because we are dealing with something that was most likely necessary for our progress. Still, the more honest we are within the less we have to suffer without.

Personally, I do not like it when I make mistakes to the point an outer lesson intervenes. I much prefer to feel the impulses, and even be racked by the false self without bringing others into the picture, because then it is my conscious self that is at the forefront, right there in the field of experience, fully awake and acknoweldging things that need not bother others (because they obviously also have their hands full as do we all).

Then dealing with others becomes a much more balanced experience, and if there is a network it is strengthened because our knowledge is transferred without the need for crisis. The network can surely grow through crisis, but if it can also grow without them then the latter path is preferable.

And that is the whole point of inner work, to accelerate development beyond the velocity of the flow of events. In this way, we take our learning into our own hands, and out of the hands of fate (as much as we can, and in an ever increasing manner as we go along- ideally speaking).

And the only way THAT can work is with BRUTAL self honesty. Part of that self honesty is acknowledging the poossibility of lack of knowledge to oneself. Paradoxically, this acknowledgment opens the possibility for knowledge, and that opening is a protection in itself, for the simple fact that we are in a realistic relationship with what is going on. Knowing that you don't know can be as empowering as knowing that you do.

 

[Nathan]

That explains how it can make you do anything, by making you identify with it, and fooling you into thinking you are not. It vibrates itself, and you go along because you think it is vibrating you.

You make it sound Esoquest as if it can fool me on a regular basis. Why is this?

From reading EsoQuest's last post, I don't think EsoQuest was referring to you personally. If the predator's mind can fool you on a regular basis, then it can just as easily do the same to everyone else. I get the impression that you are responding as one would to an attack, not to a discussion. Remember, we don't nit pick at each other because we enjoy finding faults in each other, we do it because we are providing genuine feedback. And having other "sincere seekers" to do this is invaluable because they can detect things that you would otherwise not even be aware of. And by "you", I mean everyone. :)

 

[Saman]

That explains how it can make you do anything, by making you identify with it, and fooling you into thinking you are not. It vibrates itself, and you go along because you think it is vibrating you.

You make it sound Esoquest as if it can fool me on a regular basis. Why is this?

From reading EsoQuest's last post, I don't think EsoQuest was referring to you personally. If the predator's mind can fool you on a regular basis, then it can just as easily do the same to everyone else. I get the impression that you are responding as one would to an attack, not to a discussion. Remember, we don't nit pick at each other because we enjoy finding faults in each other, we do it because we are providing genuine feedback. And having other "sincere seekers" to do this is invaluable because they can detect things that you would otherwise not even be aware of. And by "you", I mean everyone. :)

Um, I don't think this statement is correct: "If the predator's mind can fool you on a regular basis, then it can just as easily do the same to everyone else." Everyone is not on the same boat so to speak, but they might be heading towards the same destination. So lets suppose that the hyperdimensional "predator mind" is fooling me on a regular basis, would this then mean that it is also universally fooling everyone else the same way in this Realm, or would it perhaps be in different ways depending on each in[di]vidual's lesson profile? What I means is that different individuals have different levels of Understanding, different levels of Knowledge, and so, not everyone can be fooled just as easily the same way as say I might be, that is, if we suppose that I am in fact being fooled regularly. :)

Now do you think I enjoy pointing this out to you because I am self importantly seeking a chemical "high" from being right, or am I doing so because this is a discussion and we are supposed to be helping each other see the devils and not accepting whatever anyone says as a matter of fact without due investigation first on our own part? I appreciate Esoquests feedback, but that doesn't mean that I am going to blindly accept everything he states as being correct on all accounts and the simple fact is that he does not have all the data of the situation, just as I don't have all the data on what he has experienced, learned, and Understood in his Life and thus, what he sees. So the latter reasons is why we exchange perceptions and give reasons for our perception in order to discuss things: "to examine; scatter; to strike asunder, to shake; take up in conversation or in a discourse; consider and argue the pros and cons of; to make known, reveal; implies a talking about something in a deliberative fashion, with varying opinions offered constructively and, usually, amicably so as to settle an issue, decide on a course of action, etc."

 

[Guest]

Let me try to clarify my perspective in these responses. Please try to look at the spirit of the letter, as opposed to rigid definitions of terminology.

Well yes, I think this depends on what type of machine you have inherently. Some machines have a inherent tendency, an impulse, to "fight fire with fight" within, and so, the hyperdimensional "predator mind" does wish to persuade the owner of the inner dog to lash out through both its inherent[] agressiveness and self deception in order to have "two to tango". So knowledge and experience of both these types of manipulations blocks the draining of life force to the hyperdimensional "predator mind" above from the "predator mind" or say the inner dog below.

The problem is unconscious identification with the predator, meaning the "owner self" does not know where it ends and he/she begins. I believe we are speaking of formations of conditioned instinct regarding this "dog" here. I take the inner dog to be former natural instinct conditioned by predator programming, and not the predator itself (at least as I have been sorting out my thoughts on the matter here).

Unless the three lower centers are aligned in one consciousness they are prone to mechanical conditioning. The predator is the software of that conditioning that imprints upon the three centers in different ways, osit.

Observation identifies the program, and gives us the option of starving it, because it perpetuates itself through reinforcement, as you yourself expressed. The predator pushes the true self aside, and what is possessed cannot be given the consciousness that would liberate it. Deception blocks the consciousness of the true self because it sets up conditions that invalidate it.

When you are deceived to thinking you are attacked, for example, the owner self is shunted aside and the conditioned defense programming takes over. This conditioning perverts natural instinct, natural emotion, natural mind, and these cannot act in harmony to their potential because alignment with owner consciousness is blocked.

So the "owner" is either semiconscious or sometimes even unconscious. We can be decieved, but only when the owner is semi or unconscious because the owner does not participate in deceptions. We are decieved to the degree the real "I" is not present during this deception. Or it can be present and try to warn the whole psychic complex, but is not given credence because predatory presence is as yet overwhelming.

In addition, I consider the deceptive predator mind to be not really a machine, but a program imposed on our organic/psychic complex.

This program blocks out the real "I" and replaces it with its own erroneous definitions of reality. Tendencies of "fighting fire with fire", for example, originate in the nature as part of individuality, but become perverted because the self is fragmented, and each fragment is conquered and led by the predatory program.

The program may be "mechanical" in its nature, but it is also very clever, and has access to the deepest recesses of our instinctual, emotive and mental expressions and potentials. The culprit, therefore, is not the "inner dog" as natural animal nature, but a very clever predator that has become the master of the dog, and with full access to our inner "files"/weaknesses.

Observation is in part to learn what is going on, but the deeper purpose is to activate the observer, which is the true "I". Through observation the true I is energized and can claim its rightful place in the psychic matrix. The true "I" cannot be manipulated, but it can be rendered impotent because it is shunted away from its true role.

Mechanical responses, like responding in a defensive manner when circumstances do not indicate attack, represent the predator defending itself. It is the predator that identifies with the real self. The real self, on the other hand, when semiconscious cannot identify itself in order to act. In this stage, howerver, it may be able to observe passively. As it becomes conscious, moreover, and discovers where the predator is attached to it, it can learn to intervene and make the choices.

This is usually a gradual process, and usually a battle for every inch gained. Every time the dog controls response the true I is lacking presence in the lower center where said response originates. So in the beginning the true "I" can begin to observe and regain consciousness, and after it has understood the inner topography of the predator's attachments it can actually intervene with knowledge.

So again, a software program cannot force anything except a false reality upon semi or unconscious centers of mind, emotion and instinct. These are parts of the psyche, but unless aligned and flooded with the consciousness of the true "I", they depend on the program to insure the survival of the organism of which they are a part, and the context of that survival is defined by the predator.

They are, therefore, parts of the natural psyche, misaligned, and divorced from the axis of true self, and enslaved to the predator because that is the only reality available to them. This condition, when the "I" begins to activate is not guaranteed for the predator, and a battle begins between two inner realities.

The three centers cannot choose without some consciousness to guide them. So the outcome depends on which consciousness is dominant at any given time. If it is the true "I", choices are based on truth. If it is the predator, energy is expended to fulfill its falshoods. When the real "I" begins to make itself known, the predator expends a large amount of energy in invalidate any and all conditions the promote the real "I's" empowerment.

This is how I view the dynamics of deception discussed here. It's a complex situation, and we are trying to elaborate upon what others have written volumes trying to convey, so it is not easy to clarify the points, even when focusing on immediate practicals.

The animal man does not have a conscience, and so, it is [the] spiritual mant vibrates guilt through the inner dog, or say the physical body.

As I tried to describe above, the true "I", is the conscious observer and the axis of true free choice, and hence cannot be decieved. Guilt is felt through the emotion center, which responds to a false view of reality. Or it may respond to the consequences of falsely based thoughts or actions.

The three centers are part of our "legitmate" psychic complex, but they are usurped, fragmented and controlled by predatory programming. For a human being to spiritualize, and the higher centers to be present in the psychic complex, the lower ones must be claimed by the axis of true consciousness and aligned with it. Then they do not respond to erroneous input, but to truth, and the powers of all centers combine as one to deal with any situation appropriately. In that situation, dissonance can be perceived, but it is an encounter with a dissonant energy as an objectively perceived (albeit unpleasant) energy, and not a response to identifying with an inner movie of the predator.

So this distinction between animal and spiritual man, can be taken out of context. The predatory program has no conscience. True conscience, in my honest opinion, is not self-recrimination as is often popularized. True conscience is natural perception of people and events, that can result in perceptual dissonance when the these are dissonant in nature. Events include those that are of our environment, and the pervieved actions of the predator within and upon the three centers.

The true "I" being knowledgable, and being the axis of identity channeling the flow from the higher to the lower centers, acts from a perspective of knowledge and honesty, and so does not involve itself in self-recrimination. It is the predator that punishes, and often "rewards". In truth, the three lower centers are the predator's lapdogs, when under its power.

That explains how it can make you do anything, by making you identify with it, and fooling you into thinking you are not. It vibrates itself, and you go along because you think it is vibrating you.

You make it sound Esoquest as if it can fool me on a regular basis. Why is this?

Your question is based on an assumption. From where did this assumption originate? Since my intent is to describe a process that can affect anyone to some degree, it also includes you and me. You happen to be the trigger of the discussion, and of the particular lesson dramatized here. So the only "making" is in yourself. From my part, I simply have to be blunt, trusting that those here realize that we are discussing a complex and challenging situation. I think, however, that I am being civil in doing so, contrary to what you read into this.

Another assumption is "regular basis". I don't know you personally. I do know the specific situation involving this lesson, because there is enough information to observe its dynamics. The truth is that the predator can make people do whatever it can get away with. And it doesn't do this in one push, but through deception built upon deception.

All of us are, therefore, fooled in very small things on a regular basis, stray thoughts, stray feelings, stray impuses often build into whole deceptive formations if we are not vigilant. That is why self-observation is difficult initially, because the observer is abscent for the most part. I am describing my take on what happens when you are fooled. Psychopaths are under permanent control.

The rest of us are not immune to exhibiting psychopathic reactions even if that is for a few seconds of impulse, or we can be suprized when hidden buttons are pushed. And we can resolve this not by addressing the symtoms, which may be conditioned responses to imagined stimuli, but the roots behind them. When the blind spot, furthermore, is covers a greater psychic territory we can react to a whole slew of imagined threats or imposed inner stimuli.

Self honesty is the foundation to counter this control, and it implies identification with true "I", which never lies. Self honesty is difficult, however, because of the prevalence of blind spots in our being. These are where we are blind and true "I" is not present, so the one who runs the show is the predator.

Brutal honesty is not easy, but with consitent observation it can lead to making correct assessments regarding being fooled or not. If it doesn't, there is always the lesson from circustance and others.

Because the "fall" is a repeating syndrome in terms of FRV, and "ups" are when we are at [a] certain frequency that is not as low as the FRV of the "fall" due to the soverienty of the spiritual man within, and not the animal man

Others have described their experiences to self-observation in other threads. And even G says the epiphany of recognizing true "I" is very brief, and usually comes with a shock at first, and recognition does not stabilize usually until after a prolonged period of consistent deconditioning.

I, therefore, do not identify lack of crisis with being "up". Crisis is not a "fall", it is the shock of becoming aware of being fallen. The change from the fallen state to the one where we begin to rise is a radical one. Crisis comes when we encounter the walls of the labyrinth of our fallen state. Those who obey the predator implicitly navigate the labyrinth or matrix with proficiency and do not feel the dissonance of encountering its walls, hence being hit with the fact of their entrapment.

Or you can view the barriers as ceilings over our heads that we encounter as we attempt to rise. The encounter is an encounter with knowledge, the knowledge of our state. There is no fall here. Those who remain fallen, and are commited to stay that way, usually do not "fall" or encounter dissonance unless they are faced with the energy of others who are rising.

As you can see, "falls" can become lessons and hence they are not "falls", but the process of actually rising up.

Yes. Why do think I quoted falls? To imply the very thing above. It's sort of like what MJ said back in a tv commercial years ago: "I fall and fall again, and that is why I succeed"

Again, let me clarify: What seem like falls are actually lessons of rising. The quote above is a version of "I learn from my mistakes". I want to clarify that lessons are not mistakes because there is a lot of negative bias against the word "mistake". A lesson cannot be a mis-take. Only denying the crisis (or not grokking it to its fullest) is a mistake. And that "mistake" is a conditioned reaction to the predator acting on a blind spot.

You cannot avoid crisis by doing things the right way in the sense of following a predetermined menu of behaviour. Only when you are aware can you be free of crises. The whole point of these is, after all, to accelerate awareness. Thus, at some point crises stop naturally because enough presence has been attained.

Trying to forcibly avoid them, however, can actually lead to them, because the predator functions cybernetically, and avoidance can easily align someone with that mechanical dynamic. The predator drives to certain outcomes, and avoids others in a simplistic manner. It can, furthermore, doctor our three centers to elaborate upon its simplicity with deceptive convolutions.

The true self is open to all experience in its venue, and discriminates regarding what part of that experience is a predator trap. If it cannot discriminate, the "trap" is really a ceiling that it needs to encounter, and break through, to keep rising. When the self encounters crisis, it embraces it to the extent it is conscious in the totality of the person. Doing so is an investment to get beyond the need for crises.

Yes, as long as YOU are still in this realm, you are naturally still partially identified with it because you fit in this slot

We do ALL fit here. And what I write is based on encountering all of these things myself. Without the experience of all of these dynamics I would be simply speaking from the top of my head. Hitting that head on several ceilings tought me that the only thing speaking outside of experience (at least in terms of inner development) does is reveal more ceilings. So as long as those ceilings existed, I had the tendency to bypass experience and over-extrapolate.

I am confident that as long as I stay centered there will be no more head slams, and at the same time I am sensitive to even the slightest variations in the space of my rising so as to stop and look up before I hit anything. So although I learned not to slam my head, I am still moving through barriers. Slamming your head hurts alot more than moving through barriers consciously, I have to say.

Experience is the foundation of understanding, and the grounding that allows firm footing as we progress into unknown territory, and as we accumulate knowledge, we realize at some point we can continue growing without hitting our heads.

All in all, you can transcend the ceilings where the lesson finds you unaware, through increasing experience in THIS realm, and can consciously seek out learning in this realm without the discomfort of being shocked by your own consciousness coming abrubtly awake.

The devil here is that there is no blame in simply feeling psychopathic influences, but there is a "blame" if we identif[y] and ACT out on such influences. This "blame" is the "flame" or say "fricition" within between the animal man and the spiritual man.

If you define "blame" as awareness and response-ability (ability to responde) to an encountered crisis, I agree. If you define "blame" as self-recrimination, I have to disagree. Putting oneself on trial is a predatory impulse, that feeds on the conditioned compliance of semi-conscious portions of the self.

Personally, I am a bit reticent regarding the terms "animal man" and "spiritual man", especially when these are viewed as being in necessary opposition by their very nature. By condemning the animal nature offhand we tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and forget that this is a part possessed by the predator that needs to align with our central axis of being. By opposing it instead of understanding its point of view, we demonize our own nature.

The predator, on the other hand, can affect the mental center and make it think it is spiritual. This is tied to self-importance. Thus, this animal/spiritual duality is engendered by the predator acting between instinctual and mental nature (with the emotions caught in between) to keep alignment from occuring. I think we have to tread very carefully when thinking along dualistic lines.

Moreover, sometimes, external factors are the steps taken by the hyperdimensional predators to systematically decieve one, and not always the higher self taking steps to point out how one is self decieved.

In principle, this is true. If the higher self, however, were the only factor there would be no need for learning. Actually, one can say that learning can easily manifest as the friction between the higher self and the predator. It is through this friction that we learn to discern in the first place.

The[] key is to notice the pattern of the same type of attack, and to learn to block the variations of it in the future, and this through experience, is what I [am] learning to do, and that is to be extra vigilant when one is in the process of taming the inner dog in order to break it away from its life force draining chemically feel-good emotional habits, and thus, save energy for other practical uses.

Again, I agree in principle, but I think a bit of qualification is in order here. The only way to understand such attacks is to understand the dissonance. It is through the imposed implications of that dissonance that our behaviour is controlled to a great extent. The pattern itself is difficult to understand because its variations are very likely a very large number.

What we need to understand, therefore, is the weakness these varied attacks attempt to manipulate. Understanding dissonance leads to understanding the "sore spot" the attacks target. Simply trying to evolve through confronting predator strategy with counter-strategy through mental assessment of patterns, is not only limited in what it can do for us, but also dangerous. Without immersion in all levels of our lower centers, and the dissonance created in them, we can easily misinterpret the pattern, and end up avoiding our own growth, which is what the predator wants.

Regarding taming the inner dog, you yourself said (when speaking of your enthusiasm) that there is nothing wrong with feeling creative drive, which is a good feeling. And I was in agreement, despite the misunderstanding. The point is that the animal aspects of self are divorced from the consciousness that is its natural source of sustenance, and hence is forces to rely on the predator, and its addictive versions of "good feeling".

"Taming" is a metaphore that needs careful consideration, IMO. We do not "integrate" with our real-world domesticated critters, and conversly I don't think "taming" is an accurate analogy for integration of lower aspects of self. Such a term implies control, and you do not control that which is part of you, you align with it and sustain it through your "I" perspective so it ceases to be a "part", and can merge into a greater summation of selfhood.

The predator tends to present the real "I" as a slave-driver to the more primitive portions, and hence they resist it, and there is inner conflict. This lie must not be fed, IMO. To be consistent with the dog analogy, I think we need to befriend this aspect so it becomes our constant companion instead of the predator's attack dog.

This means owning it as ourself, because after all, the predator plays divide and conquer games with the psyche. The predator is, furthermore, conditioning, but it is US who are conditioned. We are the "hardware" under its "software" virus, if you will, as I see it at least.

So I think we are seeking to relieve portions of ourselves from a false master supplying false rewards and strict punishments to keep those portions in line. In that sense, integration is liberation from the source of manipulative addictions, not the suppression of well-being. Otherwise, again, we can encourage a greater rift between the three centers as well as with the higher centers, and end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

You see, if [we] strive to consciously not feed the hyperdimensional predators, they will systematically try to set up situations for you to loose faith in yourself and give up in attempting to break a habbit or addiction [or obsession], and so, if you allow them to decieve you and try to "fight fire with fire" within through that "foreign object", then those pains in the head and so forth, those feeling of constriction you have spoken of, have been effective [and affective] for their plan.

Sometimes, however, in striving to starve the predators we end up starving our lower centers and affirming the predators as the only viable source of sustenance to them. And of course that sustenance is conditioning, and it is addictive because we with-hold the natural alternative, the higher energies conducted by the true "I".

What I think the interdimensional predators do often is try to create (or emphasize) conflicts and contradictions between the lower centers. This can generate a push-pull clash within that can easily result in muscular tension to a painful degree.

As I understand it pain is not the problem, but the symptom of the problem. It is nature's way of telling us there is a problem, and the pain also tends to point at the origin of the symptoms (although this is not always straighforward with psychosomatic cases).

I also would like to say that when the real "I" is stabilized you do not even need faith in yourself, because you are rooted in its truth that transcends faith. So sometimes we lose this faith because it is a conditioned faith. If it is fragile, it means it is dependent on fragile states, which are not healthy states.

I mentioned somewhere that acknowledging not knowing can be as empowering as knowing. When one observes, one may simply not know. That is why one observes. But to be stuck on knowing, one cannot observe, because one is projecting beyond the current state of reality.

Objectively speaking, "losing faith" is simply admitting not knowing. Looking at it this way, this "loss" is stripped of its debilitating judgments, and simply becomes an affirmation of fact. The mind often creates dramas around the concept of faith, and forces the emotions into responses that compound direct attacks on the emotion center, and makes matters much worse.

And once you affirm what you observe, you realize that before you can "break" anything you have to understand it at its roots, and the only part of you that is qualified to do so is the true "I", which needs to come into presence. It does so through the energy of observation, which is really experiencing all three centers and increasing the depth of experience.

This increased in depth of inner perception corresponds to the power of the "I" to be aware. Then things can begin sorting themselves out, because as far as I'm concerned, the lower centers prefer their natural higher center sustanance rather then the addictive toxins of the predator, but cannot choose when the alternative is not present for them.

 

[Johnno]

Um, I don't think this statement is correct: "If the predator's mind can fool you on a regular basis, then it can just as easily do the same to everyone else." Everyone is not on the same boat so to speak, but they might be heading towards the same destination. So lets suppose that the hyperdimensional "predator mind" is fooling me on a regular basis, would this then mean that it is also universally fooling everyone else the same way in this Realm, or would it perhaps be in different ways depending on each in[di]vidual's lesson profile? What I means is that different individuals have different levels of Understanding, different levels of Knowledge, and so, not everyone can be fooled just as easily the same way as say I might be, that is, if we suppose that I am in fact being fooled regularly. :)

I was reading Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous last night and it went into this into some detail. Laura also sent an e-mail out to QFS covering a similar section. The gist of it from memory goes like this.

The "predators mind" is described as the personality which develops from a child beating the "essence" or real "I" into submission. The formation of the personality according to Gurdjieff is largely formed by impressions from outside. Most of society is subject to these outside impressions. (Think of societies value on "competetiveness", "ambition", "strong leadership" etc). So thus all of mankind is in this state of waking sleep due to these outside impressions. Perceptions may alter slightly but on the whole, as an example, we can't remember what clothes we were wearingt two weeks ago because we're in a semi conscious state, allowing a heap of other junk to filter through.

Gurdjieff found that those who briefly awakened, broke the chains of personality had the essence of a small child if any at all, it had been that badly treated. Even what would generally be considered "esoteric" in forums such as these, Gurdjieff considered them "exoteric" by his standards.

 

[Guest]

Now do you think I enjoy pointing this out to you because I am self importantly seeking a chemical "high" from being right, or am I doing so because this is a discussion and we are supposed to be helping each other see the devils and not accepting whatever anyone says as a matter of fact without due investigation first on our own part? I appreciate Esoquests feedback, but that doesn't mean that I am going to blindly accept everything he states as being correct on all accounts and the simple fact is that he does not have all the data of the situation, just as I don't have all the data on what he has experienced, learned, and Understood in his Life and thus, what he sees.

I don't see where the problem is. Why do you feel pressured to accept my view? As I said, I speak with conviction, but so do you. And I have seen you take apart the arguments of others without compunction. Although this thread started as being about you, the comments have by now become more generalized and represent coming to terms with the predatorial concept that does involve everyone.

What I am commenting on is your viewpoint, as expressed in your comments, as I would comment to anyone else. I don't remember demanding you agree with me. I think you have misunderstood the situation. What does the comment regarding the chemical high mean in the above context? All Nathan was saying was that it seemed to him that you were under the impression I am attacking you.

And that is simply because of a viewpoint contrary to yours. Personally, I thought someone as outspoken as yourself to point out inconsistencies in others would have no problem with views that challenge your own.

So the latter reasons is why we exchange perceptions and give reasons for our perception in order to discuss things: "the pros and cons of; to to examine; scatter; to strike asunder, to shake; take up in conversation or in a discourse; consider and argue make known, reveal; implies a talking about something in a deliberative fashion, with varying opinions offered constructively and, usually, amicably so as to settle an issue, decide on a course of action, etc."

I would think this is pretty much what is going on here. The issue is very important, and already there are over forty posts in this thread. I think this is a healthy discussion, a revealing and a challenging one. Do you feel something else is going on that is not under the above parameters of discussion?

I've written some long posts and editing was a bit of a chore so I may have some inconsistencies, or something that may need clarifying. All I am interested in is exploring the depth of this topic regarding predator attacks. It's as useful to me as to anyone else, and writing on it helps clarify my own thoughts on the matter, which reflect off of personal experience and the thoughts of others.

 

[Nathan]

I probably didn't explain myself too well. I have a habit of keeping my posts somewhat brief. It seemed to me that Saman was reading into something EsoQuest said that simply wasn't there: a perceived suggestion that Saman is fooled on a regular basis. It seems to me that Saman perceived this through the "mirror" of his personality and misread EsoQuest's intention behind it because we see the "mirror" of our personality as inverted. He personalised what EsoQuest said and appeared to take some offence to it, which led to an equally defensive response. However, the members of this forum, particularly those who have participated in this thread, can act as a "second mirror", which can give the person who is trying to "see the unseen" the feedback needed so that the person in question can make the necessary tuning of his/her reading instrument. As Laura said on the first page of this thread, "What one person cannot see in themselves, or that they see "reversed" can be seen more easily by another". Anotherwords, although one may lack insight into elements of one's own behaviour, these elements will stick out like a sore thumb to others!

Members of this forum have the opportunity to give feedback to each other as accurately and as objectively as possible. And this is something that should be ongoing.

The real challenge can be communicating the feedback. Obviously, the feedback isn't going to be easy to hear and it is hard not to take personally. However, those communicating the feedback should not give up if they meet barriers of defensiveness, self-pity, deflection or even distraction. In fact, these barriers should actually be expected. Few people will nod their head and agree with what can be very critical feedback. And even those who do may not tune their reading instrument enough - or not at all.

Everyone is going to find themselves the subject of evaluation somewhere along the line, on one thread or another, and that is not something to dread because it can only benefit all involved. I don't think anyone is beyond or above "tuning their reading instrument". Even those who have been tuning for a long time will still need the odd tweak here and there.