Are you voting & why?

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I think it still comes right back to sincerity. You can do the Work without ever being familiar with Gurdjieff and ISOTM. Sure, he refined the methodology and made it into a science, but none of it is weird or inexplicable or made up by him like some arbitrary ritual, it can all be summed up with sincerity. In the process of trying to be sincere with ourselves we will inevitably come across our mechanicalness/programs/i's, we just won't necessarily have the words to describe what we're seeing. But not having the right terminology won't stop us, if we are sincere, from seeing it, and not letting "it" be in charge, or at least making the effort towards that end.

So I think what's going on with MoM is lack of sincerity with himself and with others, a non-serious attitude about serious things. He isn't questioning his own assumptions, his own thoughts, his own reactions, his own emotions, feelings, etc. Yes, the material is very helpful to read - but only if you're already sincere. There have been plenty of people that came to this forum who have read all the material, and yet they had no sincerity. They knew all the terminology and concepts but they were just going through the motions, they had no intention to apply them correctly to themselves, they just adapted and twisted them to suit their own subjective programming instead.

So if MoM chooses to be sincere he won't waste our time with meaningless and empty apologies that aren't a reflection of newly gained understanding of what is going on here. He will simply be sincere and honest in his attempt to learn, and in doing that, everything else will fall into place. His confusion about "what is going on here" will also instantly disappear, he may even be surprised he was ever confused in the first place. And it's not reading the material that will make the difference because as I mentioned, many came here after having read the material and found themselves in stark opposition with the forum's goals and methods anyway leading to their quick departure. It's simply having the intention to learn the truth about himself and others, and having the ability to empathize and try to get out of ego-centric "I'm right, everyone else must be confused" perspective.

 

[Bernhard]

It is true, the main aspect of G's teachings are sincerity, self-honesty and being able to self-reflect, seeing one's one patterns and conditioning/programming. In a sense it is common sense if one has somewhat the ability to look at oneself objectively. Esoteric teachings as "The work" then can help it to put it "in context" so to speak.

There have been plenty of people that came to this forum who have read all the material, and yet they had no sincerity. They knew all the terminology and concepts but they were just going through the motions, they had no intention to apply them correctly to themselves, they just adapted and twisted them to suit their own subjective programming instead.

Maybe it's not always sincerity that is lacking but Understanding?
I think it it also what G. talks about Knowledge, Understanding and Being. That one one can gain Knowledge as much as one like or is able to (meaning read as many books as you like), but if Being doesn't "catch up" so to speak then true Understanding is missing. Understanding being the the result of Knowledge and Being.
As I can see in myself, having read Mouravieff's Gnosis trilogy and Gurdjieff's ISOTM over the past two years, much of what I've read I seem to "understand intellectually" and it truly makes sense to me, but applying it 24/7 is quite a hurdle, especially when a "program" kicks in and my machine just goes off. Later then I realize," Damn! I was not in control of myself at all and my horses just took off". At least I can recognize it now for what it is most of the times after it (I feel quite depleted) and try to stay conscious for the next time a program goes off. In other words, trying to learn the lesson.


[quote author= ISOTM]
"Knowledge by itself does not give understanding. Nor is understanding increased by an increase of knowledge alone. Understanding depends upon the relation of knowledge to being. Understanding is the resultant of knowledge and being. And knowledge and being must not diverge too far, otherwise understanding will prove to be far removed from either. At the same time the relation of knowledge to being does not change with a mere growth of knowledge. It changes only when being grows simultaneously with knowledge. In other words, understanding grows only with the growth of being.
"In ordinary thinking, people do not distinguish understanding from knowledge. They think that greater understanding depends on greater knowledge. Therefore they accumulate knowledge, or that which they call knowledge, but they do not know how to accumulate understanding and do not bother about it.
" And yet a person accustomed to self-observation knows for certain that at different periods of his life he has understood one and the same idea, one and the same thought, in totally different ways. It often seems strange to him that he could have understood so wrongly that which, in his opinion, he now understands rightly. And he realizes, at the same time, that his knowledge has not changed, and that he knew as much about the given subject before as he knows now. What, then, has changed? His being has changed. And once being has changed understanding must change also.
"The difference between knowledge and understanding becomes clear when we realize that knowledge may be the function of one center. Understanding, however, is the function of three centers. Thus the thinking apparatus may know something. But understanding appears only when a man feels and senses what is connected with it.
"We have spoken earlier about mechanicalness. A man cannot say that he understands the idea of mechanicalness if he only knows about it with his mind. He must feel it with his whole mass, with his whole being; then he will understand it.
"In the sphere of practical activity people know very well the difference between mere knowledge and understanding. They realize that to know and to know how to do are two different things, and that knowing how to do is not created by knowledge alone. But outside the sphere of practical activity people do not clearly understand what 'understanding' means. [/quote]


The highlighted part I can very much relate to as I read ISOTM for the second time with a year "break" in between. During the "break" I read Mouravieff, which was easier for me than ISOTM for some reason. Maybe because it is not as fragmented?
However, I also realized when reading Mouravieff that I understood the C's material better. So, now after having gotten a better Understanding of the 4th way teachings I'd like to read the Wave series again and see it in a "new light". It seems I've been reading the "same stuff" for the past 4 years or so and each time understanding seems to grow as I go back and forth. Actually I also read Castaneda a long time ago, maybe 10 years. Now in light of G's teachings Castenada's work take on a whole new perception for me as well.

Certain ideas of the 4th way teachings take some time for me to fully sink in and not just "understand" it with my mind. Reading ISOTM is a long process for me, because I contemplate on certain paragraphs and try to look at myself in that light throughout the day. But as in G's quote above, sometimes when I'm able to "step out of myself" or "remember myself", I can see certain programs (the little I's) in me and I feel it in whole body, literally "feel" the understanding and everything is very clear for that moment..........until I go back to sleep again... ....if I don't watch myself. Sometimes there is understanding with the required level of knowledge and being and other times there is knowledge but no being yet to fully understand.

The biggest challenge is the impeccability Don Juan talks about, to strive for self-remembering at all times and stay conscious of the horses and the path.
Interestingly, there is always a little "voice" that seems to know quite well what one is ought to do, but I tend to ignore it at times, because the predator is still stronger in other ways. Or, while a program is going off and my personality just reacts mechanically, I can SEE how this is all going on like an observer but have no control over it, however I know it is not "me" but just one of the little "I's" having a "blast" so to speak.

 

[vinny]

There have been plenty of people that came to this forum who have read all the material, and yet they had no sincerity. They knew all the terminology and concepts but they were just going through the motions, they had no intention to apply them correctly to themselves, they just adapted and twisted them to suit their own subjective programming instead.

Maybe it's not always sincerity that is lacking but Understanding?

everyone lacks understanding, and makes mistakes along the way. Sincerity is demonstrated by what one does about those mistakes, and how one acts when one hits the biggest obstacles and things are at their most difficult, when 'push comes to shove' as we say over here.

 

[Bernhard]

everyone lacks understanding, and makes mistakes along the way. Sincerity is demonstrated by what one does about those mistakes, and how one acts when one hits the biggest obstacles and things are at their most difficult, when 'push comes to shove' as we say over here.

Thanks for the clarification. Well said.

 

[vinny]

Thanks for the clarification. Well said.

You're welcome. Another thing I forgot to mention is this: sincerity is demonstrated by how a person acts even when they feel that they have been wronged. A sincere person will still behave graciously even when they consider that they are being unfairly treated, which obviously requires some mastery over one's self importance. Gurdjieff had something to say about this, but I can't find the relevant passage right now.

 

[Jacques]

Thanks for the clarification. Well said.

You're welcome. Another thing I forgot to mention is this: sincerity is demonstrated by how a person acts even when they feel that they have been wronged. A sincere person will still behave graciously even when they consider that they are being unfairly treated, which obviously requires some mastery over one's self importance. Gurdjieff had something to say about this, but I can't find the relevant passage right now.

I think it is this one. Isn't it?

"It often happens that, having stopped before some barrier, usually the smallest and the most simple, people turn against the work, against the teacher, and against other members of the group, and accuse them of the very thing that is becoming revealed to them in themselves.

"Sometimes they repent later and blame themselves, then they again blame others, then they repent once more, and so on. But there is nothing that shows up a man better than his attitude towards the work and the teacher after he has left it. Sometimes such tests are arranged intentionally. A man is placed in such a position that he is obliged to leave and he is fully justified in having a grievance either against the teacher or against some other person. And then he is watched to see how he will behave. A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary means for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?

"But this is not the chief thing; the chief thing is his own personal attitude, his own valuation of the ideas which he receives or has received, and his keeping or losing this valuation. A man may think for a long time and quite sincerely that he wants to work and even make great efforts, and then he may throw up everything and even definitely go against the work; justify himself, invent various fabrications, deliberately ascribe a wrong meaning to what he has heard, and so on."

"What happens to them for this?" asked one of the audience.
"Nothing—what could happen to them?" said G. "They are their own punishment. And what punishment could be worse?

 

[Pierre]

It seems since I'm his friend he wanted some "re-assurance"

Do you remember how this need for "re assurance" was expressed ?

Hi Belibaste,

I think I used the wrong word here. It was mere like a "what is going on here?" from him, no specific questions about what "the work" is about, so I recommended to get more familiar with G's teachings and thought that ISOTM would be a good introduction, basically the same suggestion that had been given him here on the board as well. It really was just a small talk between friends and I didn't try to teach him anything about "The Work" itself (how could I anyway, I'm still learning it) or try to tell him what to do.

Hi Bernhard,

Thanks for clarifying this point.

 

[twilite]

I do vote and did vote with much commitment in the recent election, even though the outcome may not be as fruitful as everyone hopes. After all, Obama has already named Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State and will have as Secretary of the Treasury a president of the Federal Reserve, so it seems it will be same old, same old. However, if we accept that all of our thoughts, words, and actions create vibrations and these vibrations will resonate with vibrations of similar frequency, then the attitude with which we vote, and that we believe we are voting for the concepts we believe we are voting for, can make a difference. Like a pebble dropped into the Ocean, as some say, will send infinite ripples which will intermingle with others' ripples, and collectively, if they all get going in the same direction, can make big waves.
You could feel it, an excitement, solidarity. I know several people who never vote and voted this time, to ride the wave. Standing against oppression, corruption, for change, at the least, I feel the American people made a statement and the ripples went far. There were parties in the streets of cities around the world the night Obama won the election. Maybe nothing will change, but then maybe we need to vote everyday.

['belief' aspect of this post is discussed here - http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=11105.msg77777#msg77777 ]

 

[Voyageur]

Are you voting & why?

Nina started this post with a very good question, especially given from a northern 3 & 4 party system to that of the southern 2 party (basically) system. Although from here the southern system is very much different in some fundamental (no pun) ways as it encompasses Congressional/Senatorial/Presidential/State votes and from my understanding much is done within the Dibolt computerised systems or some similar punch card system.

In the North voting is a pencil x yea or nah for one party representative in your riding out of a possibility of say 4 choices. Furthermore, urban ridings have the greatest representation so living in a rural setting is often an exercise in political futility when you know your choice has not one chance in eternity at surviving.

Voting in the North is also done at the Provincial and the Federal level, hence Premier and Prime Minister respectfully and is generally staggered in years so elections pop-up every 2 years in many provinces.

Living in a rural setting, talk flourishes around who/what/why when it comes to the choice and personally I have grappled every time for a suitable decision. Since Pierre Trudeau I cannot recall ever voting for someone who actually got in. Sometimes, being so disgusted with the rhetoric, rather than not voting for many reasons stated here, I have cast a vote and spoiled the ballet as a forum of displeasure with the system and candidates; some might call this naïve or some might see this as a valid form of protest?

Statistically I have voted continually in some fashion or other in federal elections while provincially I have for reasons abstained.

As awareness expands in so many facets, it almost feels quite absurd this democratic process to continue voting and yet we are on the inside looking out with our 3d field of vision so this process is intricate to the community at large even though we may not like it one bit and feel cheapened by the process. One of the posters within said something similar to that of going through the process, listening to people, seeing their expressions, how their thinking manifests and why and learning lessons in this way. Also, if as the C’s describe branching of universes and possible futures, then would not there be a difference between say Obama and McCain or Palin (hope that does not happen) and Hilary or if one could imagine a FOX News persona like Billy O’Reilly, Glenn Beck or even a reanimated Oliver North vs. say Pick a liberal’s Liberal.?

There were a few comments here from people in European countries and of course the US; this post seems to have been concluded with following the November US election with of course the result now being well known. Given that it is now a year later, it would be interesting to see if anyone has changed there thinking and why?

Thanks to all, learned much as always!

PS. In the North we sense another election being imminent!!!

 

[truth seeker]

My thinking has pretty much stayed the same. I thought about voting for Obama last year. As a person of color, I was well aware of the many reasons to vote - this was in the context of slavery. I knew that many people fought and died for the right to vote. When that choice became available, many people encountered numerous difficulties in trying to accomplish this as well (walking many miles and sometimes facing opposition and death).

What made me change my mind about voting was when I noticed Obama backing away from his initial decision to pull the troops out of Iraq as election day got closer. This was a sign to me that it would be more of the same old, same old. I knew that even if he were genuine in what he wanted to accomplish (and my feelings about this are still unclear), he would never be allowed to.

I can't even say I'm disappointed as I had no expectations to begin with. It's kind of like watching a train wreck, even though there may be something I can do after the accident there's nothing I felt I could do about the impending crash.

 

[Charliebox]

My thinking has pretty much stayed the same. I thought about voting for Obama last year. As a person of color, I was well aware of the many reasons to vote - this was in the context of slavery. I knew that many people fought and died for the right to vote. When that choice became available, many people encountered numerous difficulties in trying to accomplish this as well (walking many miles and sometimes facing opposition and death)

Did you refrain from voting all together or did you go to the polls and case a 'protest' vote (not sure if that's the correct terminology)? I'm even sure if one is able to do that in the USA, but here in Canada, that is what I did in our last federal election. All one needs to do is go in, get your ballot, and go into the cubicle as usual. When you come back out, you open the ballot in front of the volunteer, to show them you've vote for no one, and simply say, 'I refrain from voting because I can't in good consience vote for any of these individuals' (or something to that effect - basically you need to explain that it was a conscious chioce not to vote for anyone and not simply a mistake on your part). They will take your ballot, and you will still be counted as a voter, but your vote won't go to anyone.

IMO, a protest vite is better than not showing up at all. In the case of the former, you still get counted as a 'voter'; you are still taking part of the democratic process; you simply choose not to vote for anyone. You are 'voting' for no one, if that makes any sense.

As the leaders alienate more and more people in Western nations, the voting percentages have gone down. While many of these non-voting individuals may be uncaring, uneducated and apathetic, there are surely many who choose not to vote because they don't believe any of the candidates represent thier ideals. It is a shame that many of the educated, active, and caring individuals, who don't vote for a reason, are lumped in with the apathetic group.

It would be nice if more and more individuals, who feel alienated by the string of horrible leadership and broken promises over the years, went out and protested thier votes. If we could add to that group all the individuals who feel compelled to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' (both still BEING EVIL, of course), it could be a good chunk of the population.

As it stands right now, the low voting perentage gives the impression that people don't care about thier democracies and don't want to take the time to vote. It would be nice if everyone was able to quantify, and seperate from the former group, the amount of people who aren't fed up with thier democracy, but simply the people leading it.

 

[truth seeker]

Hi Charliebox,

Thanks for telling me about this. I wasn't aware that was even possible or I would have been doing it most of my life! I definitely agree with what you said regarding sending a message.

Is there an alternative for people who are American but out of the country? That was my situation at the time.

 

[Charliebox]

Hi Charliebox,

Thanks for telling me about this. I wasn't aware that was even possible or I would have been doing it most of my life! I definitely agree with what you said regarding sending a message.

Is there an alternative for people who are American but out of the country? That was my situation at the time.

Hello Truth Seeker,

You are very welcome. As I said, I'm not sure if one can even cast a protest vote in the United States. I'm not really sure about your democratic process when it comes to things like that. If it is possible, I assume that you could cast a protest vote from a distance. If you already get your ballot in the mail, you could simply leave it blank and send a letter with it, detailing that you don't want to vote for anyone. I guess the only problem with this approach, for some, would be the loss of anonymity.

 

[truth seeker]

Thanks again!

 

[Voyageur]

Tomorrow in Canada is Election Day for the post of high office. This year the buzz is to exercise strategic voting in your particular riding; we don’t vote directly for a prime minister s/he up here. Nonetheless, there is quite a diabolical man (that would be Harper) with his minions in office who has been voted out under a ‘Non Confidence’ tradition that happens once in a while when the others (parties) band together.

So here it is on the eve of our election and as said in the past, have generally spoiled my ballot as a protest to the system and its leaders. Unlike the states with the odd independent, here the parties consist of Conservatives (noted above), Liberals, BLOC (Separatist party - Quebec), NDP (socialist facsimile), Green Party (CCP or carbon credit party, who if not for that, have some ideas. But it is a house of cards as it presently stands, as are they all) and a few, depending on which riding, independents; anarchists to marijuana parties.

Well that’s the political landscape in a nutshell and it is an old game of posturing, media distractions, empty promises with many hidden strings attached to each party. Generally here; like I suppose in was in the States during the Bush reign, people are trying to figure out, even knowing the futility of politics, how to give this despot his permanent walking papers – hence the strategic voting. Sometimes it seems that perhaps this too is part of some game theory that the politicals have already calculated to favour the present guy in the end, because it is so fractured and people often in the Box will just default to their old voting program patterns, dunno exactly.

Anyway, for me, to consciously vote for someone in a broken system becomes a choice of one’s consciousness, making an alignment with perhaps lesser evils, but still a control system. However, to make a statement of this nature, to go or not to go, will likely go and exercise my drawing skills on the ballot and become a statistical number of the disenchanted. Doing even this though gives acknowledgment of the system as said. However, because of our current situation, have also kept an eye on the strategy component being discussed, which although it is also making an alignment in a broken system, it may support the community at large and send a message to the pathocrats that what they are doing is not acceptable; these are my thoughts heading into election day – your thoughts welcomed please. :)