Jerry said:
It’s likely that the increase of awareness higher up the hierarchy does bring a foreboding of being mere food for the apex, which is then buffered by the constant self-aggrandizing rewards being offered.
Sort of like a junkie aware of his condition but finding satisfaction in his fix.
Well put. Surveying the course of my own and others' development, it seems to me that many first need to achieve a certain level of rank or status within a worldly context to even encounter the quality of information or perspective necessary to realize that it's all a big pyramid scheme. To say: "Wait, if I'm feeding on them, and they're feeding on them, and on down the line... who's feeding on me? And who's feeding on them? And finally [the big one], can I step outside this system completely?"
andi said:
Hi DM, after reading your initial post, the questions related to nlp of possible benefits and the replies, I noticed that you are or have been interested in this topic(nlp). The fact that you have been aware of it after the incident, suggests that you were maybe looking to try it out yourself and see what's what. As I see it, it looks like your wish has been granted and you had a glimpse as what it feels like. Ther is good chance that I completely misunderstood this and I'm sorry in advanced.
I think what you describe is possible. Though I don't think we create our own reality, I do think our thoughts/desires/etc. affect the course of our experience. That said, this may also be a case of what goes around comes around. Before having certain realizations about consciousness and before choosing to undertake serious self-work, I researched various means of mind control employed by the power elite -- one of which was NLP. At the time, my research was mostly theoretical and I was mostly horrified at the ways people are using psychological technologies like these. However, one time I did use NLP on someone without that person's knowledge. I tried to recruit this person to my own purpose -- of course, I rationalized this by claiming it was in everyone's best interest. This person went along with my plan, but I don't know how much NLP techniques contributed to the decision. Afterward, I recognized how flimsy that rationalization was. The person could have freely chosen the course I suggested, or not, but I tainted that decision with manipulative influence. I felt terribly guilty and decided that those sorts of manipulations are unacceptable. I haven't consciously used NLP on anyone since, but I did use it that time. So there may have been some "karma" involved in my experience with "Ben" as well.
Going back to the questions about persuasion in general:
Gertrudes said:
About persuasion, I see it in the lines of what I wrote above. A sort of "hypnosis" forcefully imposed upon others where the last thing in the persuader's mind is to respect the listener's free will. The persuader does not question his view on whatever he is persuading you with, and is there to impose it. Persuasion, doesn't leave space for changing ideas, the persuader is not there to listen, but to simply pass on his beliefs. Assuming that I'm on the right track, I would say persuasion's only role in the work would be to notice it, and learn how not to be entranced by it by fighting it in another or within oneself.
Yes, insightful and well put. I agree that the listener's free will is paramount.
I am interested in what people think about persuasion because the simple act of speaking introduces and promotes certain concepts. It seems that the best a speaker can do is to intend to be as objective as possible and to attend to his listeners' rights to free will. With those imperatives in mind, it seems to me that the speaker can make the best case he can -- not with manipulative rhetoric, but openly with sound argumentation and full emotional resonance. Of course, if he is interested in objectivity, he ought to then be open to correction or additional information and not dig in his heels [note to self].
