Buffers, Programs and "the Predator's Mind"

[Gertrudes]

Re: Understanding the difference between temperament and behaviour

This seems a little confusing. I guess it depends on how you define "temperament" in terms of the Work. Is it the false personality, ego, predator; all the programs you have acquired over the years? Or is it your Essence, which from my understanding has more to do with fundamental character traits such as what center (moving, emotional, intellectual) you tend to gravitate towards?

Well, now that you mention it, very good point! I developed an idea without clarifying the main two concepts first

I understand temperament as essence being expressed and conditioned through the genetic and biological traits of the body it inhabits. I might be way off here, as I'm only conjecturing. Essence purely expressed, would likely appear very different. However essence is "entrapped" in a body with a unique combination of genetic and biological traits. From wikipedia:

In psychology, temperament refers to those aspects of an individual's personality, such as introversion or extroversion, that are often regarded as innate rather than learned. A great many classificatory schemes for temperament have been developed; none, though, has achieved general consensus in academia
(...)
More recently, scientists seeking evidence of a biological basis of personality have further examined the relationship between temperament and character (defined in this context as the learnt aspects of personality). However, biological correlations have proven hard to confirm
(...)
Most experts agree that temperament does have a genetic and biological basis, although environmental factors and maturation modify the ways a child's personality is expressed

The way I currently see it, temperament would be part of the particular"clothing" essence has to dress during each life.

When I think of behavior, I think of some observable trait, some action or response that comes about from the combination of some outer stimuli and one's own internal process. Changing behavior doesn't typically correspond to a change in inner-state, however a change in one's inner state typically results in changed behavior, OSIT.

I agree.
However, I do think that changing a behaviour consciously and repeatedly might, not necessarily will, lead to a change in one's inner state.

 

[Gertrudes]

Re: Understanding the difference between temperament and behaviour

Or is it your Essence, which from my understanding has more to do with fundamental character traits such as what center (moving, emotional, intellectual) you tend to gravitate towards?

This is a slightly different approach from how I exposed temperament in the previous post, but which could also define temperament as I initially tended to express it.
Hmmm...I think I'm not too sure of where does essence end, and biological and genetic traits start.

 

[Windmill knight]

Re: Understanding the difference between temperament and behaviour

Although I don't have the quote with me, I remember Gurdjieff saying that the essence gravitates around the emotional center. "You are the horse", I believe he said, or something along those lines (the horse being the emotions, the intellect the driver and the moving center the coach).

For a long time I didn't know what to think of that, or how to understand 'essence' in regards to the soul (the higher centers) or the seed of the soul. Well, I'm still not totally sure, but the best I can come up with is that the essence is indeed the emotional center as well as genetic and biological traits, and predispositions - that is, the things we were born with, with our emotions being our core, which can be more or less developed for different people. On top of that our environment constructed for us a false personality; and we helped create it by adding a lot of buffers and personality traits for survival.

In a fully souled individual, who has fused lower and higher emotions, the core of the essence would be the same as the soul. But for the rest of us? Because G often speaks of the essence as something that rarely develops beyond childhood, perhaps we can identify it with the so-called 'inner child' of modern psychology - or close enough for horse-shoes.

If 'temperament' refers to fundamental character traits, then perhaps it too is the same as the essence/inner child, or pretty close. If that is the case, then I think that the therapist was right that you can change your behavior but not your temperament.

As all of this sounds so theoretical and it's on the edge of becoming a word-salad - which is not good when talking about emotions - I wonder how the words of the therapist apply in practical terms. It's probably as simple as: 'you cannot cancel your emotions, but you can choose what you do with them'. Let the horse run wild, ignore it, whip it into submission, or train it with love and care?

A big Or So I Think.

 

[Windmill knight]

Re: Understanding the difference between temperament and behaviour

If 'temperament' refers to fundamental character traits, then perhaps it too is the same as the essence/inner child, or pretty close. If that is the case, then I think that the therapist was right that you can change your behavior but not your temperament.

On the other hand, perhaps the therapist was thinking of temperament as part of what we usually understand as the false personality. In that case, I think it can be changed - but only with much work and suffering.

 

[anart]

Re: Understanding the difference between temperament and behaviour

I recently had an enlightening talk with my therapist the other day, which led me to some reflections.
Also inspired by the thread on Emotions and self-observation (http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=17581.0), I decided to post this.

It seems that I have been confusing temperament with behaviour for quite a while now. In my therapist's words temperament is part of you, it is something you can't change. Behaviour is something entirely different, and you can change it. Maybe I am off in this very first premise but if I am seeing this correctly, It seems that I have been condemning myself for my temperament ever since I can remember, taking it as a behavioural issue.

Hi Gertrudes.

Have you had a chance to read In Search of the Miraculous yet? I ask because until a person begins to truly fuse a singular I, it is almost always the case that everything about their behavior and 'temperament' is false personality. Most therapists don't understand this, so they apply surface definitions where depth defines an individual.

It is my understanding that there is an 'instinctive' aspect of every person, that manifests through genetics and, perhaps, parental influence - but this is merely the faint chassis to the whole person and as a person develops Will and begins to burn away parts of their false personality, essence (the real I) begins to manifest and this chassis is merely a vehicle through which it does that.

There is danger of confusion when mixing terms and concepts concerning psychology and behavior and when one is involved in the Work, it takes some translation and discernment to navigate that, so a good foundational understanding of the concepts help. Other reading that might help are Life is only real when I am (Gurdjieff) and, also, Lost Christianity by Jacob Needleman.

 

[Laura]

Re: Understanding the difference between temperament and behaviour

I certainly think that there is something to "temperament" but it may not be exactly as current psychological theories describe. For example, I could observe very distinct temperaments in each of my five children when they were newborns. One child was very "easy" - nothing bothered her. She was able to wait a bit to be fed without getting fussy, noises or visitors didn't bother her at all. She was able to concentrate on something that interested her for long periods of time and so forth. Another child was very much affected by her environment and when she was hungry, it seemed that the world was ending; she had to be fed immediately and when she was fed, she nursed as if the world was going to end! She was upset by strangers, by loud noises, by changes in the environment, etc. That sort of thing. What I think temperament really refers to is something like what Lobaczewski calls the "instinctive substratum." Some individuals have high-tension instincts and others have low-tension instincts.

Now, regarding the two children described above, the first one with "low tension" might seem to be the one that would get along best in life, and in some ways, that is true. She is very social and tolerates a LOT of nonsense because it just doesn't ruffle her feathers, so to say. However, she seems to have a little trouble learning from her experiences because they don't seem to impact her as much as experiences impact the second, high-tension child who prefers to live quietly, but intensely, doesn't tolerate nonsense very well, and is easily upset.

 

[Laura]

Re: Understanding the difference between temperament and behaviour

There's an article on SOTT that approaches the "temperament" issue though there is obvious distortion. A temperamentally sensitive child does not have to be "bad" at relationships at all if they are given the appropriate nurture as children.

Nevertheless, it is true that the exact same parenting style can affect different children in different ways due to their fundamental temperaments or their psychological substratum.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/208693-Being-Bad-at-Relationships-is-Good-for-Survival

Being Bad at Relationships is Good for Survival
Print
Life Preserver

J.R. Minkel
LiveScience.com
Sat, 15 May 2010 16:25 EDT
Feeling happy and secure in our relationships is a goal many people strive for, but in times of need the emotionally insecure partners may be doing us a favor by being more alert to possible danger.

Evolution may have shaped us to consist of groups of emotionally secure and insecure individuals, researchers write in the March issue of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science.

When faced with threats to close personal relationships, people react in different ways according to their sense of whether the world is a secure place. The same reaction styles also cause people to be more or less attuned to dangers of all kinds.

Evolution would have favored a mix of these so-called attachment styles if mixed groups were more likely to survive than groups of only secure or only insecure individuals.

"Secure people have disadvantages," experimental psychologist Tsachi Ein-Dor of the New School of Psychology in Herzliya, Israel, told LiveScience. "They react slowly and then act slowly because they need to first get organized."

This notion would explain why almost half of all people in the world have insecure attachment styles, he said, despite the fact that people prefer secure types as romantic partners.

How we view the world

People who do well in relationships have what's called a secure attachment style. They tend to view the world as a safe place, and their optimism allows them to focus on tasks without being bogged down with negative thoughts. They seek out groups and work well in them.

In contrast are those who exhibit insecure attachment styles. Some people are anxious types, always clinging to their significant other, and others are aloof, or avoidant, preferring to deal with problems on their own instead of relying on their partners.

Attachment behavior is a survival adaptation, said Ein-Dor. Because infants can't survive on their own, they have to attach themselves to their parents. If an infant cries and is soothed by its parent, it learns that it can trust other people for love and support.

Those whose parents don't have time or energy to respond may learn they have to fend for themselves.

Such traits can take on different meanings in a group setting. When in immediate danger, people shouldn't necessarily take comfort in the sense of peace and safety a group can provide.

Benefits of being insecure

To test their idea that mixed groups would benefit survival, Ein-Dor and his colleagues put students in groups of threes alone in a room with a concealed smoke machine, which was switched on to simulate a fire. Groups were quicker to notice the smoke and to react to it if they contained individuals who scored high for insecure attachment.

Groups that had a member who rated high for the anxious attachment style tended to notice the smoke faster than other groups, and those that had a member rating high on attachment avoidance tended to react first, such as by leaving the room.

"This is the first [paper] I've read that has started to sway me toward the idea that insecure attachment styles are adaptations," said Paul Eastwick, a psychologist at Texas A&M University, who was not involved in the current study. "I have always favored more of a 'side effect' explanation."

 

[Laura]

Re: Understanding the difference between temperament and behaviour

The article on Brain Chemistry and Cognitive Bias in this thread:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=15518.0

also may relate to differences in temperament.

 

[forge]

Re: See my Devil

I have found it! I have found it!

Here i mentioned last time that i was in search of love and the energies connected to it the old corrupted / wrong type of sexual energy that was produced, was changed during Jan.-Feb...-May 2010. The produced quality - sense/feeling - of the energy has gradually changed and i mentioned i owe a post about this.

Now, recently reading into Lost Christianity, 2500 Strands, Life Beyond the Veil and my recent mentioned first-in-life panic attack breathtakingly emulating a very real felt heart attack, during it the expected closeness of Death, nigh/beginning near death-experience in the way of feelings, not yet visual/unconscious as by really terminally ill people, but this panic attack did show me the feeling of it.

The subsequent loosening of my old-hard-stubborn views of life, the celebration of actually remaining alive, the joy of having the opportunity to continue this life - i mean the tasks awaiting in 3rd D. only - and the experience of having nobody to call for help, having no relatives in vicinity, (i live alone), the experience/insight that i finally saw that i'm alone and loved and nurtured and cared for by nobody.. nobody really a physical person: relative or family member those who usually live with those who are usually "there" with you, having nobody there to help and having the panic attack, experiencing closeness of death what it would like to go:

Finally has shown me, let me See it what i was looking for all along, what i was shown only by my Grandmother in Life, but even Shown i did not understand, couldn't internalize couldn't learn it until now.

Now i have found a very special kind of love. I think the love could be of a mother toward her child, if i had a daughter or son [have not] in the process of upbringing the child, i would have known this special kind of love, you only give to your most close, most loved being: your children, your wife or husband, your sister, your mother, relative or being like me having nobody to really care for and the only one i could love this way is dead, my most close and most loved Being that i wish to love dearly as (i could my child if i had one)is:

You.

 

[John G]

Re: Understanding the difference between temperament and behaviour

I certainly think that there is something to "temperament" but it may not be exactly as current psychological theories describe. For example, I could observe very distinct temperaments in each of my five children when they were newborns.

When my son was born in 1998 I used the article below to type him for the two Jungian scales that the article says can be seen in babies. I just have the bibliography for the article, it's all I could find when I wanted to try it in 2001 for my daughter (I could perhaps have tracked it down from the college where Smith taught since I lived near there at the time but I wasn't that curious). The typing worked but it probably helped that my son is very heavily biased towards an endpoint for those two scales (Introvert-Extravert and Perceiving-Judging).

Smith, D. (1997, Autumn). Baby types: Early personality expression. Bulletin of Psychological Type, 20(4), 4-6.

David Keirsey puts the 16 Jungian types into 4 temperaments so for him at least temperament is kind of just a higher level, less exact category for Jungian types. This would be Jungian type in the born with bias that doesn't change sense. There is also a maturity level scale for all of a person's Jungian factors (whether biased towards or against) that can change. So even in a Jungian personality model sense, you aren't stuck with your bias. In fact it is said (by John Fudjack) that to get to the highest level you kind of have to do that in all the factors. To me that related to the idea of having your thinking and feeling lower centers in balance. I do think the higher centers are a completely different thing.

 

[Gertrudes]

Re: Understanding the difference between temperament and behaviour

Although I don't have the quote with me, I remember Gurdjieff saying that the essence gravitates around the emotional center. "You are the horse", I believe he said, or something along those lines (the horse being the emotions, the intellect the driver and the moving center the coach).

Interesting you should mention this because I had initially understood it as "I" being the result of the interaction between horse, driver and coach.

In a fully souled individual, who has fused lower and higher emotions, the core of the essence would be the same as the soul.

Thank you Windmill Knight, this helps to clarify my confusion between essence and soul. I never quite grasped the difference between the two.

If 'temperament' refers to fundamental character traits, then perhaps it too is the same as the essence/inner child, or pretty close. If that is the case, then I think that the therapist was right that you can change your behavior but not your temperament.

Yes, I think that is what she meant. She actually used that same expression: fundamental character traits. From our talk I gathered that temperament would reflect the instinctual impulses. Laura gave a good description when exemplifying the difference in temperament between her two children, which is along the lines of how I understand temperament to manifest.

 

[Gertrudes]

Re: Understanding the difference between temperament and behaviour

Have you had a chance to read In Search of the Miraculous yet? I ask because until a person begins to truly fuse a singular I, it is almost always the case that everything about their behavior and 'temperament' is false personality. Most therapists don't understand this, so they apply surface definitions where depth defines an individual.

Yes I have, or rather, I devoured it! I definitely need to read it again because I am sure I lost a lot of important information. You've brought a very good point in that without fusing a singular I and discarding the layers of false personality, it will be very hard to see what really are fundamental character traits, assuming they exist.
In my conversation with the therapist, we tried to draw the line between what were instinctive impulses, the way one reacts to outside stimulus as in, reacting faster, less fast, calmer, more anxiously, etc. , and what belonged to the realm of what she called behaviour. Behaviour from what I gathered, would be the way I use and express the energy generated from that outside stimulus. However, I am aware that in psychology there is no such thing as false personality and the fusing of a singular I. In fact, having many Is is accepted as the norm, so I need to be very careful with her as I'm stepping in quicksands.

There are a lot of filters between essence and the behaviour expressed, and temperament can likely be confused with false personality, particularly in psychology terms. As I currently see it temperament would be something independent of false personality, and this is where I think this chassis, as you've mentioned Anart, would come in, as a vehicle for essence to be expressed. That is if I understood you correctly.

I've ordered Lost Christianity a few weeks ago, since it's coming from the US and I'm in EU it takes longer to arrive. Can't wait to read it!

I certainly think that there is something to "temperament" but it may not be exactly as current psychological theories describe. For example, I could observe very distinct temperaments in each of my five children when they were newborns.

I have a couple of classes for mums and their babies, most mums join in when their babies are 6 weeks old. Although not being its focus, it has been very interesting to observe the different behaviour amongst babies. Some just like to observe what's going on and are pretty content with it, others clearly don't like it when mum is not paying as much attention to them, some are patient and take longer to react, some seem very reactive and can become upset for almost nothing, and so on. Although in this case, the babies belong to different mums, so one could speculate that causes the difference.
Your experience seems to prove differently tough.

Me and my brother showed very different "temperaments" as well. My mother says that my brother proofed to be a very active and nervous child since his first year, with what I suspect were ADD symptoms (although she had no idea what that was at the time), learned how to talk and walk very fast but also initially very clumsily. In my case, my mother says that I was very quiet and observant, and that she thought that I had some sort of deficiency because it took me a long time to say my first words, although when I did, the words came out right.

There's an article on SOTT that approaches the "temperament" issue though there is obvious distortion. A temperamentally sensitive child does not have to be "bad" at relationships at all if they are given the appropriate nurture as children.

Nevertheless, it is true that the exact same parenting style can affect different children in different ways due to their fundamental temperaments or their psychological substratum.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/208693-Being-Bad-at-Relationships-is-Good-for-Survival

Interesting article, thank you Laura. Although as you've said, a temperamentally sensitive child won't necessarily be insecure if properly nurtured. On the other hand, a less temperamentally sensitive child can develop insecurity traits if improperly nurtured or even abused.

 

[Windmill knight]

Re: Understanding the difference between temperament and behaviour

In a fully souled individual, who has fused lower and higher emotions, the core of the essence would be the same as the soul.

Thank you Windmill Knight, this helps to clarify my confusion between essence and soul. I never quite grasped the difference between the two.

Well, as I said, that's just my interpretation, so take it with a grain of salt! ;)

 

[Buddy]

More on Understanding the Machine

The recent discussion in the visibility of the 4th density thread got me thinking about some things that I could post that might add some helpful detail for anyone interested. I didn't want to post it in that thread because it seemed to much like 'dumping' in a situation where that which was provided was enough.


I like what Ana said about "what precisely defines a machine is its impulsivity", because I had recently finished reading a very interesting neuroscience equivalent:

It takes a minimum of 10 to 20 milliseconds (thousandths of a second) for any sensory message to reach the brain. After that, the brain must spend yet more time in evolving a response.
...
Perception...an early forming, pre-aware response to the world that allowed us to perform reflex actions like hitting tennis balls and driving cars. In this phase, we can react quickly and unthinkingly — or if there is thought, it is of an impulsive or creative nature. Then after perception comes the fuller, more reflective, consciousness of apperception. This is awareness with the mind sharply focused on the meaning of a moment and our response properly supervised and perhaps even a little ponderous.
...
One of the most important early discoveries was that even the process of forming a sensory picture was smeared out over about a tenth of a second. Experiments showed that the brain tended to fuse together events like two noises or two flashes of light if they followed in quick succession.

This could cause powerful illusions.
...
Such illusions are revealing because they catch the brain in the act of covering up for its own lagging processing.
...
An old school neuroscientist, Benjamin Libet used ERP recordings (evoked response potentials) as an improvement overe EEG readings during brain explorations to demonstrate that the 'impulse' to act originates from a quarter of a second to a half second before the mind is aware of it (it's own intention).
Source:
_http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_chapter%20on%20libet.html
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

So, we can effectively be running on automatic via chains of associations in the psychological substratum powered by neuro-muscular energy and only think that we are choosing our own actions? In fact, it appears that what we can wind up doing is simply rationalizing the behavior (words and actions) that we see ourselves doing while thinking we are actually making conscious choices. Laura also covered that in the Wave under Addiction and describes the pre-aware, pre-processing behavior of the impulse system, osit.

Galahad's post about probing yourself and getting a sense of the tension in your body reminded me of how one could use Edmund Jacobson's ideas for learning your own body language (although it's not stated as such).

Edmund Jacobson, the originator of PR (progressive relaxation before it degenerated into PMR without the self-observation/mindfulness component) spent, perhaps 70 years demonstrating the neuromuscular underpinnings of cognitive schemas. Starting with successful experiments with knee-jerk reflexes, and through arduous efforts with the aid of scientists at Bell Telephone Laboratories, Jacobson eventually
was able to measure tension directly. He recorded electrical muscle action potentials as low as one microvolt, a unit previously unmeasurable by the physiologists of the day. Thus quantitative electromyography (EMG) was launched. The resultant use of objective measures of degree of relaxation and tension guided Jacobson to develop and validate PR.
...
From his experiments and the research findings of other researchers, it is now known that the 1,030 skeletal muscles can control other systems of the body, including [the reduction and elimination of] mental (including emotional) events.
Source:
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF STRESS MANAGEMENT, p. 57-
_http://books.google.com/books?id=T-hUvwUNjvUC&dq=Principles+and+Practice+of+Stress+Management&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=0dP-S4qoOZLiNaD71Ts&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Perhaps this could also be related to "expanding the present moment.'

Hope this adds some useful details.

 

[Gertrudes]

Re: More on Understanding the Machine

Thank you Bud, this is very useful.
The last thread you have linked seems to explain a lot of questions that have been wondering in my mind lately. I will read it carefully.

From his experiments and the research findings of other researchers, it is now known that the 1,030 skeletal muscles can control other systems of the body, including [the reduction and elimination of] mental (including emotional) events.

Very interesting. It reinforces for me the fact that we need to address ourselves as a whole constituted by mind, body and spirit. One part affects the other.

I like what Ana said about "what precisely defines a machine is its impulsivity"

Yes, that caught my attention as well.

I'll share a few thoughts on what has been crossing my mind lately, that I think goes in accordance with this subject:
I think that once we have been given a stimulus, lets say an unpleasant stimulus, and through conscious effort we are capable of observing our inner state for long enough to prevent a reaction, we can, with practice, begin to lead the path into a different and consciously chosen direction.

One of the tools I also think is useful in this process, is to notice one's inner dialogue. What is going on at that moment, at those milliseconds after the stimulus has been given. The first thing that tells me that something relevant is indeed going on, is noticing how my body reacts. In the same line of thought of what Galahad said I think, noticing tension, where it is held, how it feels. With practice I suppose the perception of these sensations can come to awareness in an increasingly shorter period of time.
Usually an inner dialogue will be linked to the sensations. Noticing the inner dialogue and discovering what it really means, who is speaking and who is listening to the speaker inside oneself is proving, at least to me, to be very fruitful in controlling one's impulsivity.
Once these I's are identified, we can proceed to change the dialogue in a way that reflects one's aims of inner growth and self knowledge. This is sometimes easier to do with a "cool head", osit. I could be completely in the wrong track here, but so far, after understanding who is speaking and what that I is really saying, I find it easier to plan and practice how to constructively transform the inner dialogue when I am not submerged within the heat of the moment.

This also reminds me of studies that have been made to athletes (apologies for I have no reference of those studies ). If my mind doesn't fail, in one of those studies a group of basketball players was divided into two. The first group was told to practice their shots at the basket for a determined amount of time, the second group was told to practice the same for a much shorter period, and visualize themselves in the practice for the remainder of time. The results were surprising, the second group had much better results.

Back to inner dialogue: once another unpleasant stimulus has been given, one can proceed to observe and change the inner dialogue accordingly. By changing it, we can gradually exercise the control "muscle". To clarify, exercising control over ones reactions.

I have began to try this approach recently and had interesting results. Personally, I am very far from being able to control my impulsivity, but well, it is a start.

Anyway, I hope I have not diverted too much from where you intended to go with your thread Bud.