Do any entities feed on joy?

[webglider]

We continue to try to wake each other up as best we can, but it is not so simple. And that is an understatement. It is an ongoing process, and easy to fall asleep whilst assuming one is awake.

Thanks nomad.

There's a part of me that wants to fall asleep. After I read Anart's response, I reread all the posts on this thread and read all of The Obama Wins[i'] thread and due to all those doses of reality it isn't so easy to lull myself to back to sleep again although there is still that part of me that wants to and so I probably will again until, maybe one day, I won't want to fool myself anymore.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

So if 4d STS 'knows' that they will succeed, because this wishful thinking becomes reality in 4D;
would they be afraid or concerned of the possibility of 'losing'/not succeeding?

I think being afraid (or whatever form fear may take in 4D) of "loss" or "failure" does not necessarily lead to awareness of the problems/obstacles in your way. A silly but obvious example is people who believe they'll go to heaven and terrified of the possibility that "God" will reject them and not accept them into heaven. So they do everything they can to make sure they get to heaven. But of course we know that they still won't. Their failure is inevitable because their goal was based on assumptions and was unachievable in reality - cuz there's no heaven, they WANT there to be a heaven so much that this desire overrode their objectivity, caused a bias, and they started believing that there is a heaven. So those assumptions/wishful thinking were created because of self-importance, which is like the very first/fundamental assumption of seeing self as more impotant than others. And that is an imbalanced perspective and everything else they think and do is rooted in this "desire-based imbalance". A lie is at the root of everything they think and do. You gotta start with a good seed if you want a good tree which produces good fruit. So I think that's why STS just cannot possibly "get it right" as long as they remain under the initial false assumtion of being more special or important than anyone else, leading to desires/fears, leading to anticipation/wishful thinking, and wishful thinking gets you every time. At least that's how I understand it so far.

 

[Bo]

We continue to try to wake each other up as best we can, but it is not so simple. And that is an understatement. It is an ongoing process, and easy to fall asleep whilst assuming one is awake.

Thanks nomad.

There's a part of me that wants to fall asleep. After I read Anart's response, I reread all the posts on this thread and read all of The Obama Wins[i'] thread and due to all those doses of reality it isn't so easy to lull myself to back to sleep again although there is still that part of me that wants to and so I probably will again until, maybe one day, I won't want to fool myself anymore.

Hi webglider FWIW,

The part that wants to fall asleep, is I think connected to lack of faith in accepting the truth, to be more clear , there is some part inside your head that basically goes like, ''noo way this can't be true, impossible.'' It is difficult to believe that this world is run by lunatics and not by conscience honest man. From self-observations, I have seen that fear also plays a major role in this area. fear to accept the truth, that nothing is what it seems.

We want to believe that things go well, but we don't want to know...

as nomad said, it is easy to fall back into sleep, to act like nothing has ever happened, to dream. but that's really all what it is, a dream.

"You do not realize your own situation. You are in prison. All you can wish for, if you are a sensible man, is to escape. But how escape? It is necessary to tunnel under a wall. One man can do nothing. But let us suppose there are ten or twenty men—if they work in turn and if one covers another they can complete the tunnel and escape.
"Furthermore, no one can escape from prison without the help of those who have escaped before. Only they can say in what way escape is possible or can send tools, files, or whatever may be necessary. But one prisoner alone cannot find these people or get into touch with them. An organization is necessary. Nothing can be achieved without an organization."

That's why a group is so important, we can constantly shock eachother, so we can keep our eyes open , and if we keep on persisting , and who knows maybe someday everything will change, because of a group that decided to do something.

 

[combsbt]

Their failure is inevitable because their goal was based on assumptions and was unachievable in reality - cuz there's no heaven, they WANT there to be a heaven so much that this desire overrode their objectivity, caused a bias, and they started believing that there is a heaven.

Ok, first of all this depends on what you mean by heaven. But isn't assuming there is no heaven a similarly flawed viewpoint? What makes you so sure that there is not a heaven? I agree that a goal based on the fear of not getting into heaven is rooted in self importance. That is the main reason I see this goal as unattainable using this method. However that does not necessarily mean that the goal is not attainable by any method. I just wouldn't throw out any possibilities on the nature of reality without sufficient evidence to disprove them.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Ok, first of all this depends on what you mean by heaven.

True, but I meant something like any assumption about what reality is that is not based on all available data. Generally "heaven" is a religious concept and as such, there are many different heaves contradicting one another. But they're not even theories, they're just ideas.

But isn't assuming there is no heaven a similarly flawed viewpoint?

Not if it is not an assumption but a hypothesis from all available data. It is extremely unlikely that "heaven" exists in any way shape or form close to what most religions surmise. The religions and their ideas are based on lots of contradictions and many things are provably false as more and more research is done. Their ideas of heaven are intimately linked with their ideas about "God(s)", which are of course often in opposition to one another, but also self-contradicting even within each individual source. And the more we observe reality, the less we see that it works the way religions try to tell us it does. Not to mention the source of these religions which to a large degree is known, and how they were passed down, etc.

However that does not necessarily mean that the goal is not attainable by any method. I just wouldn't throw out any possibilities on the nature of reality without sufficient evidence to disprove them.

Who defines what is sufficient though? I think there's plenty of data already to make some ideas highly improbable and others much more likely. Generally any religious ideas about God and/or Heaven go against much of the data that we already have about the universe and how things work, and don't work. And often it even goes against some of the most fundamental assumptions about reality that we have - that are the root assumptions which all logic/math is based on. We know that these assumptions never failed us before, and making logical inferences from available data is the only tool we have to figure anything out or do anything, otherwise math/logic wouldn't even exist or have any application, there wouldn't be an objective reality that we could ever understand or do anything with.

One such example would be the first words in the Bible, "In the beginning..." and right away we have a problem. Beginning of what? What happened before the beginning? And so on. And those are important questions because without answering them in a logical manner that is consistent with our fundamental logical assumptions, that statement would have absolutely no meaning (at least to us humans). Explaining it away by saying "God is above all logic or sense, and he can make contradictions exist cuz he's God. He can create a stone he cannot lift" does not in any way help support that statement or address the problems with it. But I still leave the possibility open that spaghetti monster created all things and we go to the spaghetti kingdom when we die, together with all the other equally improbable heaven ideas. But I still consider them (most of them) extremely improbable.

 

[anart]

   Ok, first of all this depends on what you mean by heaven.  But isn't assuming there is no heaven a similarly flawed viewpoint?  What makes you so sure that there is not a heaven?  I agree that a goal based on the fear of not getting into heaven is rooted in self importance.  That is the main reason I see this goal as unattainable using this method.  However that does not necessarily mean that the goal is not attainable by any method.  I just wouldn't throw out any possibilities on the nature of reality without sufficient evidence to disprove them.

Hi combsbt, it sounds like you think there is a 'heaven'.  Perhaps you could describe your understanding of that, since it may come down to interpretation?

 

[combsbt]

Hi combsbt, it sounds like you think there is a 'heaven'. Perhaps you could describe your understanding of that, since it may come down to interpretation?

I don't think that there is a 'heaven' in the way it is commonly presented, I would dismiss that in a similar matter as SAO (as very improbable). However I did notice that Gurdjieff often says when referring to the death of someone (I'm thinking of MWRM) - "May he attain the Kingdom of Heaven." Perhaps he is using the idea of a "Kingdom of Heaven" idea as a description of a "higher realm"? From the viewpoint of esoteric Christianity (I'm not too familiar with the subject so correct me if I'm wrong) the idea of heaven may take on a different meaning and have some useful substance to it. The idea of awaking and seeing that the Kingdom of Heaven lies within is a concept that I think parallels the Work and I think Gurdjieff makes a point of that.

 

[Renaissance]

However I did notice that Gurdjieff often says when referring to the death of someone (I'm thinking of MWRM) - "May he attain the Kingdom of Heaven." Perhaps he is using the idea of a "Kingdom of Heaven" idea as a description of a "higher realm"?

I may be wrong but I think Gurdjieff was referring to achieving a real I, which would in some sense be a higher realm but not quite a higher density like 4D.

 

[combsbt]

I may be wrong but I think Gurdjieff was referring to achieving a real I, which would in some sense be a higher realm but not quite a higher density like 4D.

Yeah, when I said "higher realm" I wasn't really referring to 4D. After looking into it, it seems like the term "realm" is often connected with "densities". I think you're right about him referring to achieving a real I - and I think that is connected with the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven lying within. It is something one creates/achieves within oneself.