Don Juan & "The Enemies of a Man of Knowledge"

fluxed

The Force is Strong With This One
Jonathan said:
i find myself lately thinking about this process of learning. so many thing can stand in one's way, and most of the time it's one's own self! there are so many obstacles, distractions, diversions and deceptions. if it's taken into account all at once it can be overwhelming!

sometimes i come to the point internally, not of thinking "i know it all" or any ridiculous notion like that, but perhaps getting complacent.....
I found the only thing standing in my way was people.

People cannot be trusted in positions of power, to ensure the citizens
their rightful knowledge.

The internet changed all this. The new world order will not
afford the same for our grandchildren and the bloodline
will monopolize all public networks, just as they have the courts
and police force and institutions and blah blah blah.

The state has always put conditions and limits on our education.
Hence, education first came with a religious framework.
The majority of humanity is passive to a drip-feed of information.
Our capacity , far under-estimated [ and we wonder why only so much brain is used]
and wasted on a materialistic lifestyle, a sort of substitute to fill in the void.

I see material as recycled 'stuff'. Whereas the human spirit and
the collective of cosmic spirits, ensure me a fantastic future
and i might add, without any royal interference where important
decisions are concerned.

The sea will be my graveyard, i wish for no royal interference whatsoever
which works to recycle the human spirit, via symbology and familiarities
,following death. A graveyard on land, affords the interface.

This may sound far fetched but i would ask people to look
into Thoth and leylines.

True freedom of information leads to a royal free world.
No class system as a result and moderate lifestyles encouraged.

Leaders without flash transport and expensive / corrupting influences.
Leaders who swear ONE oath to the PEOPLE.

Technology could be developed to ensure these oaths - transparency
affording clear access. A free internet like we have today, connected
evermore so to the leaders, so the public can develop relationships with
them, contrary to our rubbish system.

Working from the top down, is the only way to clean us this mess.
 

obyvatel

The Living Force
Fluxed, your posting privileges have been revoked. If you are interested in meaningful communication with this forum in the future, please take the time and effort to familiarize yourself with some of the stuff here including links that were provided in your introduction thread.
 

Dylan

Jedi
I've read a few things about people on this forum being comfortable in an intimate relationship with someone only if they were collinear in respects to their understanding, action and knowledge of the work. I'm wondering if a man of knowledge can continue on the path of the fourth way while remaining with in a relationship with a spouse who seems to have no desire to pursue the work as well?

What about relationships with family and friends who are not of the same mind? Or have I gotten it wrong? I'm wondering if people who are not collinear would be considered enemies, if they created ultimatums or revoked friendship or some such based upon an alignment with their ideas?
 

axj

Dagobah Resident
While it is off-topic in this thread, I think that at least some degree of colinearity in an intimate relationship is more important than in other relationships. Though even in friendships and in family relationships (parents), it always depends. For example, if a friend is destructive towards you in some ways, then it is best to end that relationship.
 

Dylan

Jedi
Isn't it the case that the STS nature of people is, in some instances destructive to our path regardless? Or is there a threshold where external consideration yields to self preservation?
 

axj

Dagobah Resident
The way I understand it is that we are all STS, though to different degrees. It is certainly true that it is best not to have close relationships with the highly destructive STS types. Though even the most vile STS types can be useful for the Work as petty tyrants. But then you need to know exactly what you are doing, OSIT.
 

panca kanga

Padawan Learner
Dylan said:
Isn't it the case that the STS nature of people is, in some instances destructive to our path regardless? Or is there a threshold where external consideration yields to self preservation?
I thought that a lot of the point of External Consideration was that it is a self protective strategy. In the same way as STO helps self by helping others so STO protects self by considering others - not imposing unwanted points of view or ways of behaviour upon the other. After all, if you try to impose some thing on someone that they do not want or are not interested, in they are quite likely react negatively and strike back in some way.
Perhaps that is not quite the situation you were thinking of?
 

Dylan

Jedi
Well, I suppose there would be a point at which someone who we consider a friend or is family ceases to be anything other than a petty tyrant. In this case I would think it would be best to move along, but I think in reality it is much more difficult to delineate, and given the fragmented nature of personalities, perhaps the way some people behave could resemble a petty tyrant sometimes, but not all the time.

So, would we consider family, a partner or those we think of as friends to be an 'enemy' if they cross a certain line of STS behaviour? Or am I off track?
 

cfalrurfoft

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Keep in mind that external consideration does not always involve acting in a socially considerate manner. Often it does, but not always. The point is acting with awareness of the situation so as to bring about the most beneficial outcome for all involved.

It's impossible to make any kind of list of "rules" that make for always being externally considerate. See the updated CassWiki article on the Law of Three for more information, especially in the section on duality and context.

Often, it is possible to set healthy boundaries and improve the dynamics in relations with others. But in some cases, it is best to break off a relationship, as engaging further would only feed the STS nature of one or both participants - i.e. the other and/or the self. (And it often happens that people stay in abusive relationships because they internally consider that they must be "nice" and "good", which to them means staying at any cost.) There's plenty of material to be found about toxic relationships - where psychopathology, or simply "damage" and social programming, is involved, and there's no chance of any change taking place.

In a hopeless relationship, there's any number of possibilities for what the best options may be. Often just walking away - or fleeing if a person is dangerous - can be proper. There's even some cases where the externally considerate thing to do is to act like a "jerk", saying and doing whatever will most quickly and cleanly sever the relationship, and taking on all the blame. This is not the norm, though (and is most often appropriate when the person in the Work has ended up feeding on someone and must stop it, including stopping the other's attachment to the relationship).

Needing to end a relation does not necessarily mean that the person one distances oneself from is to be viewed as an "enemy". As the C's say, in such situations, it's a matter of acting for one's destiny, rather than against the other person. (This distinction goes hand in hand with external vs. internal considering.)
 

axj

Dagobah Resident
I would like to add that the four enemies of a Man of Knowledge that Don Juan talks about are all 'internal' challenges - not 'extenal' enemies.
 

Alada

The Living Force
panca kanga said:
Dylan said:
Isn't it the case that the STS nature of people is, in some instances destructive to our path regardless? Or is there a threshold where external consideration yields to self preservation?
I thought that a lot of the point of External Consideration was that it is a self protective strategy. In the same way as STO helps self by helping others so STO protects self by considering others - not imposing unwanted points of view or ways of behaviour upon the other. After all, if you try to impose some thing on someone that they do not want or are not interested, in they are quite likely react negatively and strike back in some way.
These are important points I think, external consideration is about being attentive to the needs of others, of considering them first and adapting our manner accordingly in order to help them – which in turn helps us. As others have stated there can be no hard and fast rules, and there will be pathological types from whom it is certainly best to get clear of, but the question should be always be approached carefully and things given due consideration. Networking helps.

Many people tend to consider the question of this or that person becoming an ‘enemy’ from completely the wrong angle, get into the wrong mode of thinking about it, an ‘us and them’ type of thing which helps no one. We forget or fail to even notice that it is not other people who have changed, but something in us that is now different. From this point of view it is we who have become the enemy. If we say or do silly things, change drastically overnight or whatever we only have ourselves to blame then if attack comes our way which might otherwise have been avoided.

[quote author=In Search of the Miraculous]
"General conditions at the beginning of the work are usually of the following kind. First of all it is explained to all the members of a group that they must keep secret everything they hear or learn in the group and not only while they are members of it but forever afterwards.

"This is an indispensable condition whose idea should be clear to them from the very beginning. In other words, it should be clear to them that in this there is no attempt whatever to make a secret of what is not essentially a secret, neither is there any deliberate intention to deprive them of the right to exchange views with those near to them or with their friends.

"The idea of this restriction consists in the fact that they are unable to transmit correctly what is said in the groups. They very soon begin to learn from their own personal experience how much effort, how much time, and how much explaining is necessary in order to grasp what is said in groups. It becomes clear to them that they are unable to give their friends a right idea of what they have learned themselves. At the same time also they begin to understand that by giving their friends wrong ideas they shut them off from any possibility of approaching the work at any time or of understanding anything in connection with the work, to say nothing of the fact that in this way they are creating very many difficulties and even very much unpleasantness for themselves in the future. If a man in spite of this tries to transmit what he hears in groups to his friends he will very quickly be convinced that attempts in this direction give entirely unexpected and undesirable results. Either people begin to argue with him and without wanting to listen to him expect him to listen to their theories, or they misinterpret everything he tells them, attach an entirely different meaning to everything they hear from him. In seeing this and understanding the uselessness of such attempts a man begins to see one aspect of this restriction.

"The other and no less important side consists in the fact that it is very difficult for a man to keep silent about things that interest him. He would like to speak about them to everyone with whom he is accustomed to share his thoughts, as he calls it. This is the most mechanical of all desires and in this case silence is the most difficult abstinence of all. But if a man understands this or, at least, if he follows this rule, it will constitute for him the best exercise possible for self-remembering and for the development of will. Only a man who can be silent when it is necessary can be master of himself.

"But for many people it is very difficult to reconcile themselves to the thought that one of their chief characteristics consists in undue talkativeness, especially for people who are accustomed to regard themselves as serious or sound persons, or for those who regard themselves as silent persons who are fond of solitude and reflection. And for this reason this demand is especially important. In remembering about this and in carrying it out, a man begins to see sides of himself which he never noticed before.”[/quote]

It’s a mistake I’ve made myself, and goes something like this... When you begin to talk to others about ideas which to them have suddenly appeared completely out of nowhere (and in which they have no interest), to them it is as if a small spot has suddenly appeared on your forehead. The more we talk, the more we start to act differently towards others (lack of external consideration), the more the spot grows becoming larger by the day. It begins to irritate people, while we on the other hand are completely oblivious to it’s appearance, and so we carry on.

Finally we can talk so much (nonsense) that the little annoying spot grows into a huge target, now folk have something to aim for! It’s like the playground joke of sticking a note on someones back reading “kick me”, only we attach the note on ourselves. If things get hooked up to an us/them, everyone else is an ‘enemy’ attitude, then that shows through loud and clear to others as well I think in aloof/standoffish/condescending way. By that point, not only have we placed the target on our head, we’re leaving arrows around the place too.

“Always expect attack! Especially if it will cause problems later on” as the Cs put it. From this point of view we can become our own worst enemy. The best line of defence against ourselves while working out with whom we wish to spend time with and whom we’d rather not, is (as much as is sensible) not outwardly to not change anything about us form other’s point of view. And certainly not to waffle on about matters in which they have zero interest.

Stick with whatever worked before, but do it consciously, learn play a role. If Bob always liked to talk with you about football, then talk about football. If Mary likes to make small talk and gossip, then do that – whatever it takes! Whatever works for them, works for us. If we’re more attentive to the needs of others, do everything we can to make their lives easier, make them more comfortable and feel at ease around is, then we’re far less likely to make ourselves their enemy.

Worth remembering at this time of year as many of us head off for family get-togethers. Much energy can be conserved!
 

Dylan

Jedi
Thanks, that was very insightful. To some extent I do keep mum about things I detect are of no interest to others, but if can only take so much sports discussion before I switch off! I do have some friends who are enlightened, so if I feel the need to discuss these ideas in person at least I can phone them up and arrange a visit.

So, the enemies are internal, and when we allow ourselves to conflict with others it is usually a result of our own inadequate communication skills or consideration?
 

obyvatel

The Living Force
Dylan said:
So, the enemies are internal, and when we allow ourselves to conflict with others it is usually a result of our own inadequate communication skills or consideration?
We talk about "internal" and "external" considering. "External" considering is about behavior - or what we do. What needs to be done in each situation is often unique to the situation and it unfolds naturally depending upon the states of the participants. If we are able to remain free inwardly instead of getting lost in identification - say with our ideas of how a conversation should be like, we are in a better position to give the situation what it demands. Interesting things may sometimes happen when we are able to stay free inwardly while being involved/related to the conversation externally.


[quote author=Dylan]
To some extent I do keep mum about things I detect are of no interest to others, but if can only take so much sports discussion before I switch off! I do have some friends who are enlightened, so if I feel the need to discuss these ideas in person at least I can phone them up and arrange a visit.
[/quote]

I was in a situation in a relative's house with a few other men watching a game about which I did not even know the rules. I was told (warned) beforehand that specially one of the guys (call him A) did not really speak much and was best left to his game. Now, in such a situation, my first inclination was to avoid the living room and help out with the food and beverage arrangements. However, this was not my home and the social customs would dictate that I stay in the living room and hobnob with the other guests and this would make the hosts more comfortable. So I did. I let others know that I did not know much about the game and hoped that they would excuse my ignorance if I made some silly comments. As the evening progressed I did ask some questions which the others were kind enough to answer. I did not impose myself on their enjoyment but tried not to stick out as a sore thumb either. I asked A if he followed this game back in his home country (he was an immigrant) and based on his answers, broadened the conversation to include other cultural topics. I did not know much about his country so my questions were genuine. A did not seem to mind and was quite engaged in the conversation. At the end of the evening, people were in a happy mood, even though their team lost the game (miserably). The hosts later told me that they were surprised to see A interact as much as he did.

This example is of course a one-off incident with strangers. With friends and family members who do not share similar interests different dynamics come into play. Conserving our own energy is important in such instances and doing that without sticking out as a sore thumb is external considering in action. If the topic being discussed does not interest us at all, then we can broaden the focus of our awareness to see how people are talking (rather than what they are saying), how they are positioning their bodies with respect to the group (which often tells us something about the social hierarchy dynamics), while being aware of how we are breathing and holding our own posture. We can possibly self-observe and learn something if we are not caught in our own inner demands about how the situation should unfold.

The quality of our presence matters in real life interactions - how we say things and when we say things are as important as what we say. If we are fiddling with our cell phone thinking we would rather be somewhere else doing something else (even the Work), our quality of presence is poor and even if we speak out the greatest pearls of wisdom in such a state, they are unlikely to have any effect on the listeners. To my understanding, what we say often indicate our knowledge, whereas when and how we say what we say indicate our being. Our being can sometimes create an opening in which seeds of knowledge can be planted for others. Does not mean the seeds would sprout - but they can at least be given a chance.
 
Top Bottom