Escaping General Law

[webglider]

In the following quote, Mouravieff states that "Instead of tryng to annihilate the "A' influences, or to carve out a path between them for himself by his exploits, while continuing his esoteric education, he should instead escape their grasp."

Here is the quote in context:

From Mouravieff's Gnosis Vol I pp. 78-80


"Let us, however, be very careful not to give the distinction
between 'A' and 'B' influences too narrow an interpretation. "
A' influences act through the General Law, and therefore
conform to the Divine Will. We already know one reason for
their being: to serve the interests of the Ensemble. Yet let us
not forget that everything is relative. He who studies esoteric
science must not naively oppose 'A' influences. That would only
succeed in bringing catastrophe. This was Don Quixote's instructive
experience--so wrongly understood. 'A' influences play a positive
role in the economy of the Universe. They combine with devastating
force to oppose anyone who tries to attack them directly in their
ensemble. The task of the seeker is different. Instead of trying to
annihilate the 'A' influences, or to carve out a path between them for
himself by his exploits, while continuing his esoteric education, he should
instead escape their grasp."

How does one do this especially if one is a parent?


Isn't it the responsibility of parents to try to teach their children how to escape grasp of 'A' influences?

But 'A' influences purposely target children and adolescents.

How does one protect a child from a whole culture?

It's the child's free will to ignore the parent, but how does the parent emotionally cope with this especially if there may be future suffering for the child?

 

[anart]

In the following quote, Mouravieff states that "Instead of tryng to annihilate the "A' influences, or to carve out a path between them for himself by his exploits, while continuing his esoteric education, he should instead escape their grasp."

How does one do this especially if one is a parent?

Hi webglider, I think you might be getting a bit ahead of yourself. In order to avoid A influences and 'escape the General Law' - one must be awake enough to understand the often very subtle difference between A and B influences. It's my understanding that in order to escape the General Law one must be fully awake with a fused magnetic center.

This, of course, does not mean that one can't take measures to reduce its influence - and be vigilant and aware of it, so as to avoid becoming Don Quixote.

Isn't it the responsibility of parents to try to teach their children how to escape grasp of 'A' influences?

Actually, I don't think that it is. I think it's the responsibility of a parent to raise a child in as healthy a manner as possible so that the child has a minimum of narcissistic damage, and other programs, instilled in them - in order to make 'escaping A influences' much more manageable IF the child, at some point in their life, chooses to do so. Reading the books on narcissism in the QFG reading list would go a long way toward understanding how vitally important this is. (list is in the book section on the forum)

It seems also important to remember that everyone has their own 'lesson profile' - thus you cannot determine the needs of another - even your children - (excluding, of course, the necessary parental role in 'raising' a child in a healthy enough manner that they can fully be themselves).

But 'A' influences purposely target children and adolescents.

No more than they 'target' adults - A influences ARE this world, for the most part - thus the 'getting ahead of yourself a bit'.

How does one protect a child from a whole culture?

I don't think one does - necessarily - I think the best a parent can do is focus on what they can affect - the upbringing - healthy psychological environment and helping a child become who he or she can become, with a minimum of damage.

It's the child's free will to ignore the parent, but how does the parent emotionally cope with this especially if there may be future suffering for the child?

I think it would be wise to focus on your own understanding of esoteric development and to focus on becoming the kind of parent who does not narcissistically damage their child. This is exceedingly difficult to do in today's world, since almost everyone is narcissistically damaged from their own childhood and passes this on to their children with out ever realizing it.

In short - it might be wise to leave your children's esoteric development to them - they are their own little souls, after all - and to focus on what a parent's role truly is - to help a child become who they are with a minimum of damage along the way. This alone is a monumental task.

 

[Tigersoap]

In short - it might be wise to leave your children's esoteric development to them - they are their own little souls, after all - and to focus on what a parent's role truly is - to help a child become who they are with a minimum of damage along the way. This alone is a monumental task.

Hi Webglider,

I think Anart explained it very well.
Although I would as a parent, always give the opportunity to my child to be interested in these matters.

As a young parent, I can see how already my child is imitating my own behavior, for good and for worse and that's a shock when you see your child reacting like you do sometimes. Albeit with her own personality.
So focusing on your own narcissistic traits and programs should be first and foremost imho.
To give the best of your abilities the care and affection that your child needs as to build his sense of confidence and trust in himself so he won't always look for it "outside" is already a good start osit.

I am not there yet but I think there is an age where children will start to ask questions and that may be a proper time to share your knowledge osit. Keeping in mind what what said above by Anart of course :).

 

[KC Kelly]

It's such a tough job trying to be a good parent in this "A" influence-dominated world. I see more and more every day the negative influence on my 12 year old son from this video game generation. There's so much that he's unaware of, and my heart hurts for him and I just want to help him any way I can. But I also realize that to force him or to make him listen to certain things that I want to tell him about is STS disguised as STO. I ponder and contemplate and look at different possibilities of awakening him to more of the truth about our world, and its like going around in circles in my head. I end up at the same place I started from. Not only would such a line of action be STS, I'm constantly reminding myself that I'm not exactly the sharpest cat in the world either, and I have plenty of my own lessons to work on and awakening to do. And I have also considered that its possible that this particular incarnation is for the purposes of him coming to 3rd density primarily....to play.

webglider wrote:

Isn't it the responsibility of parents to try to teach their children how to escape grasp of 'A' influences?

Actually, I don't think that it is. I think it's the responsibility of a parent to raise a child in as healthy a manner as possible so that the child has a minimum of narcissistic damage, and other programs, instilled in them - in order to make 'escaping A influences' much more manageable IF the child, at some point in their life, chooses to do so. Reading the books on narcissism in the QFG reading list would go a long way toward understanding how vitally important this is. (list is in the book section on the forum)

It seems also important to remember that everyone has their own 'lesson profile' - thus you cannot determine the needs of another - even your children - (excluding, of course, the necessary parental role in 'raising' a child in a healthy enough manner that they can fully be themselves).

And its so difficult to do just this when one becomes increasingly aware of "the terror of the situation". I just want to do MORE. And then it looks like doing MORE is just doing what you have been doing. Its just nags me sometimes that it feels like its not enough.

webglider wrote:
How does one protect a child from a whole culture?

I don't think one does - necessarily - I think the best a parent can do is focus on what they can affect - the upbringing - healthy psychological environment and helping a child become who he or she can become, with a minimum of damage.

In short - it might be wise to leave your children's esoteric development to them - they are their own little souls, after all - and to focus on what a parent's role truly is - to help a child become who they are with a minimum of damage along the way. This alone is a monumental task.

This is pretty close to the overall conceptual understanding that I end up with each time I start running all this stuff through my head over and over again. The situation is apparent to me, at least in as much as I can see that its extremely ugly. I then look at what is the best way to handle the daily rearing of my child in this STS dominated world, and end up at the start once again - focus on what I can do as a parent who loves his child and wants the best for him, considering the playing field we are presented with.

And keep at it, while continually updating my database as to what is out there that we are contending with. I'm getting quicker at not allowing myself to be frustrated at my son's lack of response to my "help". My esoteric development is not the same as his, and thats just the way it is.

 

[alwyn]

Actually, I don't think that it is. I think it's the responsibility of a parent to raise a child in as healthy a manner as possible so that the child has a minimum of narcissistic damage, and other programs, instilled in them - in order to make 'escaping A influences' much more manageable IF the child, at some point in their life, chooses to do so. Reading the books on narcissism in the QFG reading list would go a long way toward understanding how vitally important this is. (list is in the book section on the forum)

It seems also important to remember that everyone has their own 'lesson profile' - thus you cannot determine the needs of another - even your children - (excluding, of course, the necessary parental role in 'raising' a child in a healthy enough manner that they can fully be themselves).

Actually and practically, one must do both; i.e. raise the child free of narcissistic influences, AND educate about the general law and the real world. The sufis have a long history of doing just that, which is why they have such a continued effective presence in this area.

Having said that, the sufis also state that one should speak to someone according to their level of experience. It is certainly possible to talk to children in a way that communicates ideas, but is not so horribly esoteric that the whole concept goes over their heads. The teaching tales of the sufis are a good place to start. There is one especially, put out by Idries Shah's organization (and please spare me the fight over his credentials....the tale is an old sufi one, and he only reports it) called "The Old Woman and the Eagle" which is put out by Hoopoe press. This is an instrumental tale, and lays a good foundation for the development of the authentic self. They have many other books which are teaching tales for children. My son was raised on them, and one thing everyone who meets him says is that he has his own voice.

I have used daily incidents to discuss the effects of both general law and psychopathy with him now he is older, and I try to teach him to use his mind effectively in evaluating both people and events. I think that not arming your child for the world he lives in, even if under the guise of 'letting him find his own spiritual path' is criminal, in the same way that dumping a kid into a pit of snakes and saying 'good luck' would be. We are given knowledge to use, and we are given knowledge to pass on, where appropriate. If we don't teach our children, what are we good for?

Children WILL find their own spiritual path. But in the same we we teach to look both ways before crossing the street, we can teach them to look inside to see their essential self, to understand the operation and effects of general law, or even to understand and evaluate where a person is 'coming from'.

I think the best a parent can do is focus on what they can affect - the upbringing - healthy psychological environment and helping a child become who he or she can become, with a minimum of damage.

Hear hear!

 

[Renaissance]

Actually and practically, one must do both; i.e. raise the child free of narcissistic influences, AND educate about the general law and the real world.

This is contradictory. Thinking that children must be taught about the general law is narcissistic; it's determining the needs of another.

 

[webglider]

Thank you Anart, Tigersoap, K.C. Kelly, and Shane for the heartfelt responses, the time you took to write them, and for addressing my concerns about the conficts between the urge to protect my child, the necessity to respect her free will, and the need to focus on my own esoteric development.

Thank you for reminding me Anart, that my daughter has her own soul's path. Like K.C. Kelly, I become frustrated with my daugher's lack of response which is probably a defense mechanism against my urgency, so it helped to be reminded that she she is not at the same esoteric level as myself, "and that's just the way it is".

I find that I undermine my own spiritual growth by the negative emotions I generate when I dwell upon the terror of the historical and contemporary situations. This negativity backfires because it makes me lose credibility with my daughter who compares me with other adults who are not as anxious as I am. Sometimes I feel like Cassandra who was given the gift of prophecy and the curse of having the people she tried to protect not believe her when she warned them of what was to come.

Thank you Alwyn for suggesting the Sufi teaching stories which I will order. I've used teaching stories when she was younger, and she still revisits them occasionally. Providing new ones will give her more insight.

I have a question for Shane:

Actually and practically, one must do both; i.e. raise the child free of narcissistic influences, AND educate about the general law and the real world.

This is contradictory. Thinking that children must be taught about the general law is narcissistic; it's determining the needs of another.

Aren't the creators of A influences narcissistic? Wouldn't the decision to not teach children about this law, or pointing out examples of it in life, hurt children by not providing them with the knowledge to protect themselves?

Teaching a law is different than forcing it down their throats. Once the child has this information, he or she has the choice to accept it or not.

If they are not given this knowledge, then they are so much more vulnerable.

Mayabe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. Can you explain further whyyou feel that this information would be "determining the need of another?"

 

[anart]

I find that I undermine myown spiritual growth by the negative emotions I generate when I dwell upon the terror of the historical and contemporary situations.

Well, for what it's worth, I don't think esoteric development can proceed without negative emotions - they are often the fuel for the fire that burns away the false personality. There is power there, that, correctly utilized, can change everything. Perhaps the question would be why are you inflicting your negativity on your daughter? Is this evidence of internal considering?

This negativity backfires because it makes me lose credibility with my daughter who compares me with other adults who are not as anxious as I am. Sometimes I feel like Cassandra who was given the gift of prophecy and the curse of having no one believe her when she spoke them.

Welcome to the club - interesting lesson, isn't it? All there is is lessons - and in my personal experience, one of the most difficult ones is learning that just because you see something doesn't mean that anyone else in your immediate life sees it - especially when they are all asleep. Again, all I can do is stress Free Will and respect for others' lesson plans and - in this case, perhaps, the idea that seeds planted, very carefully and with external consideration, often don't bloom until much later.

I'm often shocked when someone in my family makes comments based on vague things I said a few years ago - they are actually listening, even though, initially, they never seem to be, or even actively discount what I might be muttering about in general terms.

I have a question for Shane:

Actually and practically, one must do both; i.e. raise the child free of narcissistic influences, AND educate about the general law and the real world.

This is contradictory. Thinking that children must be taught about the general law is narcissistic; it's determining the needs of another.

Aren't the creators of A influences narcissistic? Wouldn't the decision to not teach children about this law, or pointing out examples of it in life, hurt children by not providing them with the knowledge to protect themselves?

Teaching a law is different than forcing it down their throats. Once the child has this information, he or she has the choice to accept it or not.

If they are not given this knowledge, then they are so much more vulnerable.

Mayabe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. Can you explain further?

I don't intend to speak for Shane, but it seems to me that there is a very fine line here. Teaching ones child about the world and the forces in it (in a way appropriate for their age) is, of course, part of parenting well. I think the issue might arise when one's own understanding and interest in spiritual development gets projected onto the child.

Teaching a child about A and B influences is necessarily erroneous, simply because until a person reaches 'responsible age' expecting them to be able to objectively discern between the two is rather unfair - and anyone who thinks they are teaching a child such things most probably cannot correctly discern between the two either - it would amount to the blind leading the blind. (osit)

That does not mean that one shouldn't introduce basic principles of empathy/compassion/human actions versus human words and being aware and vigilant - that they should not prepare a child for adult life on this planet - that they should not tell the child the truth in a way that takes into account a child's understanding and vulnerabilities.

One could also introduce general concepts of learning and development that fall in line with what one understands to be important in personal development - but when you get to the level of A and B influences - it would be like explaining fluid dynamics to a child because you are deeply interested in fluid dynamics, no matter what the child might be interested in or able to conceptualize - which is putting your own needs/interests ahead of the child's - which is narcissistic.

Again - it is a fine line and it's my understanding that it is much more effective to teach children by example - the example of who you are - not of what you consider esoteric knowledge to be - which necessitates a lot of Work - usually beginning with working on one's narcissistic damage, thus the suggestion of the books in the QFG book list. fwiw.

 

[alwyn]

This is contradictory. Thinking that children must be taught about the general law is narcissistic; it's determining the needs of another.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. A mother's job is to determine the needs of her child until that child is capable of determining it's own needs. To continue with your postulate, if I pass someone who is ill on the street, am I allowed to determine their need? If I see someone who is hungry, am I allowed to determine their need? There is a huge difference between determining someone's need, and imposing control, which perhaps is what you mean? The great teachers (including the C's, yes?) were here because of someone's need. How did they determine this?

While I laud the elucidation of narcissism and psychopathy here, I think we should be careful about bandying these terms about unthinkingly. Labels are all too easy to pin on someone, and it is an effective conversation stopper, isn't it, to say that one or one's argument is narcissistic? Truth is a little harder than that, and requires going beyond the obvious or the cheap shot. Also, as I understand narcissism, it really precludes thinking about (or determining) the needs of another, no? For the narcissist, there IS no other.

 

[Aiming]

For the narcissist, there IS no other.

For the narcissist there is another. (edit: just how he goes about his 'caring' for another is 'different')
It is anybody out there who 'flatters' him by sharing his personal views of life, his convictions, his interests etc.
If the narcissist sees his convictions mirrored in people around him, he feels happy. And those
people do exist for him, because they are confirming that he is right (and being right about one's convictions sure is nice, isn't it?)
and therefore very important for his 'beautiful' and self-righteous self-image.


So daring to assume the position that one knows how to determine another's needs, that is determining which direction the child's life has to go, is -unless one has developed the Real I- narcissistic.

(and it's different whether you pass somebody ill on the street or whether you -as a 3d-being- determine what the path of a new human being is;
which would be something like discerning A and B influences..)

imho and fwiw

 

[Renaissance]

Aren't the creators of A influences narcissistic? Wouldn't the decision to not teach children about this law, or pointing out examples of it in life, hurt children by not providing them with the knowledge to protect themselves?

Teaching a law is different than forcing it down their throats. Once the child has this information, he or she has the choice to accept it or not.

If they are not given this knowledge, then they are so much more vulnerable.

Mayabe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. Can you explain further whyyou feel that this information would be "determining the need of another?"

I think some of the problem is attempting to teach the General Law while under it’s influence. In this way the General Law can corrupt the General Law. Talking about ‘a influences’, ‘b influences’, the ‘general law’ and such can only be vague words and concepts when presented to a passive person living under this system, let alone presenting it to a child who is still developing. Attempting to do so may teach a child more about how to be self important by sounding smart and elusive than the actual contents. Expecting a child to understand and act in accordance with a level that is not their own is also a common feature in narcissistic families. In single parent families a child is often treated like a friend and given some of the responsibilities of the missing parent. It’s the same dynamic.

I think care is needed though to not treat children as ‘lesser people’ either, as that seems to be the other side of the same coin.

There was a good article Sott published recently called, “The Wildest Colts Make the Best Horses” by John Breeding. I think one of the helpful concepts he brought up was ‘adultism’:

Recognize Adultism

Adultism is the systematic mistreatment of children and young people simply because they are young, and it is the core oppression here. The pattern is one of massive disrespect; one key to knowing whether you are acting as an agent of this oppression is to query any action toward a young person with the following simple question: Would you treat another adult the same way?

Recognize the Code Word "Potential"

Focusing on a child's "potential" is subtle adultism. When adults focus on a child's "potential," they have lost sight of the child. Do not trust the thinking of anyone who keeps emphasizing the "potential" of your child; rather, put your trust in those who can celebrate and delight in who your child already is.

Independence and Responsibility

Perhaps the most frequent concerns I hear from parents are about their children's responsibility (irresponsibility) and independence (dependence). I really think that much of the problem is that, as a society, we have abandoned our children and have copped out on our responsibility to fully provide what they need to develop well. What I want to offer here, however, is a way to think about these two crucial polarities of independence-dependence and responsibility - irresponsibility that I think will be helpful. I will borrow Jane Healy's metaphor of the adult as a "scaffold." The idea is that our job as parent is to act as a scaffold for our children, and to avoid falling into false illusions about dependence and responsibility.

If we fall into illusion about independence, we err on the side of providing no support for our child.

If we fall into illusion about dependence, we err by taking too much care and preventing development of a child's own mastery.

If we fall into illusion about responsibility, we guilt and blame ourselves and/or our child, and forget that responsibility is a part of our inherent nature. Responsibility means "ability to respond." It is our nature to thoroughly enjoy responding to the best of our abilities. If we don't it's because we're in distress, or don't have the information or relevant skills.

Providing a "scaffold" for your child means that you encourage your child's own thinking and action (independence), but you are there as support, as model, as coach, as ally (dependence). Isolation does not exist; responsibility is not a burden, but a rich shared experience. You and me, together. One for all and all for one.

The 'potential' bit also seems to relate to the topic of 'determining the need of others'.

A mother's job is to determine the needs of her child until that child is capable of determining it's own needs.

Well, the issue is when the parent is addressing their own needs instead of the child’s, and this is essentially what the quote, ‘determining the needs of others’ is about. It’s external vs. internal consideration. Considering another’s needs is the opposite of what is commonly referred to here as ‘determining the needs of others’. You’ve been around here for a while and seem pretty familiar with the C’s and Laura’s work. Are you not familiar with that phrase here, it’s use and meaning?

To continue with your postulate,

You’re not continuing with my thoughts, but your own. I’ll try and clarify though.

if I pass someone who is ill on the street, am I allowed to determine their need?

An example of ‘determining someone’s need’ in this instance: the individual needs to be sent some love and light so they can feel better.

If I see someone who is hungry, am I allowed to determine their need?

Determining a need: the hungry person needs a job so he or she can eat.

There is a huge difference between determining someone's need, and imposing control, which perhaps is what you mean?

It’s not necessarily imposing control, although that’s often a result. It is more a denial of someone’s actual needs through projecting your beliefs onto them. It’s thinking we know best. We don’t. Our children should know that too. Teaching them that we’re omniscient when we’re clearly not is teaching them to act in the same way. It’s no wonder that kids react so strongly against criticism when they’re taught through their parents actions that they should be all knowing.

While I laud the elucidation of narcissism and psychopathy here, I think we should be careful about bandying these terms about unthinkingly. Labels are all too easy to pin on someone, and it is an effective conversation stopper, isn't it, to say that one or one's argument is narcissistic?

If narcissism is sought to be understood here, how would bringing it up be an effective conversation stopper?

Truth is a little harder than that, and requires going beyond the obvious or the cheap shot.

Exactly.

Also, as I understand narcissism, it really precludes thinking about (or determining) the needs of another, no? For the narcissist, there IS no other.

Again, ‘determining the needs of others’ has a specific meaning here. If you are already aware of this, you are obfuscating the issue. If you are not but want to engage in useful discussion, you need to do some catching up. This concept is gone over quite extensively in the Wave. And here I don't think I'm determining your needs but considering them. ;)

 

[PepperFritz]

Expecting a child to understand and act in accordance with a level that is not their own is also a common feature in narcissistic families. In single parent families a child is often treated like a friend and given some of the responsibilities of the missing parent. It’s the same dynamic.

Having been raised in a family with the dynamic described above, the following part of your post immediately jumped out at me:

I become frustrated with my daugher's lack of response which is probably a defense mechanism against my urgency, so it helped to be reminded that she she is not at the same esoteric level as myself, "and that's just the way it is".

I would suggest that it is necessary to consider whether your urgent need for your daughter to "respond" to your "education" may be more about a desire to share and discuss these ideas with another adult, which would cause you to ignore her lack of interest/understanding at this point in favour of your immediate need.

This negativity backfires because it makes me lose credibility with my daughter who compares me with other adults who are not as anxious as I am.

Clearly, sharing your "anxiety" with your daughter is not in her best interest. Again, it is necessary to consider whether by doing so you are acting more in the interest of your own need to share your anxiety with another adult.

Sometimes I feel like Cassandra who was given the gift of prophecy and the curse of having the people she tried to protect not believe her when she warned them of what was to come.

Is there not a touch of self-importance here influencing your behaviour? As Anart has pointed out, there is a fine line when it comes to the issue of "protecting" your children. I would suggest that the most important thing is knowing where to draw the line, and perhaps that might come from reminding and reconciling yourself to the fact that you do NOT know what their lessons are in this life and CANNOT "protect" them from such lessons. They really do need to be free to make their own "mistakes".

I'm not suggesting it is easy. But I think being aware of the pitfall of treating your child as an adult (and thereby bringing your own needs before hers) is important to keep at the front of your mind when you feel the "urgency" to "share" something with your daughter. Is what you are about to share with her genuinely in her best interest, or is it more about relieving your anxieties and meeting your own needs?

 

[anart]

This is contradictory. Thinking that children must be taught about the general law is narcissistic; it's determining the needs of another.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. A mother's job is to determine the needs of her child until that child is capable of determining it's own needs. To continue with your postulate, if I pass someone who is ill on the street, am I allowed to determine their need? If I see someone who is hungry, am I allowed to determine their need? There is a huge difference between determining someone's need, and imposing control, which perhaps is what you mean? The great teachers (including the C's, yes?) were here because of someone's need. How did they determine this?

While I laud the elucidation of narcissism and psychopathy here, I think we should be careful about bandying these terms about unthinkingly. Labels are all too easy to pin on someone, and it is an effective conversation stopper, isn't it, to say that one or one's argument is narcissistic? Truth is a little harder than that, and requires going beyond the obvious or the cheap shot. Also, as I understand narcissism, it really precludes thinking about (or determining) the needs of another, no? For the narcissist, there IS no other.

alwyn, it appears that it would serve you (and this forum) well if you did some reading on the subject to get up to speed. There is a list of books at this link http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4718 - the psychology section.

 

[webglider]

Aren't the creators of A influences narcissistic? Wouldn't the decision to not teach children about this law, or pointing out examples of it in life, hurt children by not providing them with the knowledge to protect themselves?

Teaching a law is different than forcing it down their throats. Once the child has this information, he or she has the choice to accept it or not.

If they are not given this knowledge, then they are so much more vulnerable.

Mayabe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. Can you explain further why you feel that this information would be "determining the need of another?"

I think some of the problem is attempting to teach the General Law while under it’s influence. In this way the General Law can corrupt the General Law. Talking about ‘a influences’, ‘b influences’, the ‘general law’ and such can only be vague words and concepts when presented to a passive person living under this system, let alone presenting it to a child who is still developing. Attempting to do so may teach a child more about how to be self important by sounding smart and elusive than the actual contents. Expecting a child to understand and act in accordance with a level that is not their own is also a common feature in narcissistic families. In single parent families a child is often treated like a friend and given some of the responsibilities of the missing parent. It’s the same dynamic.

I think care is needed though to not treat children as ‘lesser people’ either, as that seems to be the other side of the same coin.

There was a good article Sott published recently called, “The Wildest Colts Make the Best Horses” by John Breeding. I think one of the helpful concepts he brought up was ‘adultism’:

Recognize Adultism

Adultism is the systematic mistreatment of children and young people simply because they are young, and it is the core oppression here. The pattern is one of massive disrespect; one key to knowing whether you are acting as an agent of this oppression is to query any action toward a young person with the following simple question: Would you treat another adult the same way?

Recognize the Code Word "Potential"

Focusing on a child's "potential" is subtle adultism. When adults focus on a child's "potential," they have lost sight of the child. Do not trust the thinking of anyone who keeps emphasizing the "potential" of your child; rather, put your trust in those who can celebrate and delight in who your child already is.

Independence and Responsibility

Perhaps the most frequent concerns I hear from parents are about their children's responsibility (irresponsibility) and independence (dependence). I really think that much of the problem is that, as a society, we have abandoned our children and have copped out on our responsibility to fully provide what they need to develop well. What I want to offer here, however, is a way to think about these two crucial polarities of independence-dependence and responsibility - irresponsibility that I think will be helpful. I will borrow Jane Healy's metaphor of the adult as a "scaffold." The idea is that our job as parent is to act as a scaffold for our children, and to avoid falling into false illusions about dependence and responsibility.

If we fall into illusion about independence, we err on the side of providing no support for our child.

If we fall into illusion about dependence, we err by taking too much care and preventing development of a child's own mastery.

If we fall into illusion about responsibility, we guilt and blame ourselves and/or our child, and forget that responsibility is a part of our inherent nature. Responsibility means "ability to respond." It is our nature to thoroughly enjoy responding to the best of our abilities. If we don't it's because we're in distress, or don't have the information or relevant skills.

Providing a "scaffold" for your child means that you encourage your child's own thinking and action (independence), but you are there as support, as model, as coach, as ally (dependence). Isolation does not exist; responsibility is not a burden, but a rich shared experience. You and me, together. One for all and all for one.

The 'potential' bit also seems to relate to the topic of 'determining the need of others'.[/]


WEBGLLIDER HERE: I still can not figure out these quote boxes. First I couldn't get a quote inside one. Now I can't figure out how to get my post separated from Shane's quote box. This must be terribly confusing for everyone. I apologize. The following is Webglider:


I certainly agree that to sit a child down and give a lecture about A, B, and C influences is counter-productive for many reasons one of which is that such a lecture would elicit utter boredom in the child.

But is it wrong to teach him/her about specific examples of harmful A influences without defining what an A influence is esosterically and giving a lecture about it?

For example, should a parent allow a young her child to determine his/her own bedtime when he/she must leave the house early the next morning? If a child wants to pursue a diet consisting of sugar and hydrogenated fat, is that an expression of free will or is it the result of the conditioning of marketers whose paychecks depend on seducing children to buy their products?

Doesn't the parent have the responsibility to protect the child's health and physical safety even if the child's wishes go against his/her own interests?

John Breeding, in his article "Wild Colts Make The Best Horses" from which you quoted the following:

"I really think that much of the problem is that, as a society, we have abandoned our children and have copped out on our responsibility to fully provide what they need to develop well."
makes the point that the psychopathic policies of our culture have not only "abandoned our children," but are actively destroying them physically, emotionally, and mentally.

In steps the parent who is also at the effect of the same psychopathic society, who tries to provide a counterveiling influence, and finds him/herself opposed on all sides. For example, when my daughter was small, I tried to provide healthy foods for her, and to keep her away from sugar. I was astonished that the parents of her friends would secretly give her candy when I was not there. It was their little secret.

Some of their children are now overweight, hyperactive, and are or were on ritalin or other drugs. My daughter has some difficulties focusing her attention and I'll never know if it's because of the junk she eats or for some other reason. I won't medicate her, and she continues to indulge in sugar.

I can not see how she exercised her free will in that scenario, or what lesson she learned since she has no basis of comparison of how she may have been if she had grown up without sugar.

WEBGLIDER HERE AGAIN: THIS QUOTE IS IN SHANE'S RESPONE TO ALWYN'S RESPONSE

A mother's job is to determine the needs of her child until that child is capable of determining it's own needs.

Well, the issue is when the parent is addressing their own needs instead of the child’s, and this is essentially what the quote, ‘determining the needs of others’ is about. It’s external vs. internal consideration. Considering another’s needs is the opposite of what is commonly referred to here as ‘determining the needs of others’.

To continue with your postulate,

You’re not continuing with my thoughts, but your own. I’ll try and clarify though.

[

If I see someone who is hungry, am I allowed to determine their need?

There is a huge difference between determining someone's need, and imposing control, which perhaps is what you mean?

{quote=Shane}It’s not necessarily imposing control, although that’s often a result. It is more a denial of someone’s actual needs through projecting your beliefs onto them. It’s thinking we know best. We don’t. Our children should know that too. Teaching them that we’re omniscient when we’re clearly not is teaching them to act in the same way. It’s no wonder that kids react so strongly against criticism when they’re taught through their parents actions that they should be all knowing.

I've had a lot of contact with adolescents who join gangs because of the actual need for protection against other gangs or to find a surrogate for a family that is either dysfunctional or absent. These are real needs, but there is a real price to pay for fulfilling those needs in that way. Would an adult who advises them that the price they may have to pay to fulfill those needs may entail being required to kill someone, to reveal information about addresses of family members, to smuggle weapons in private body parts, to sell or take drugs, to engage in group sex, to jump someone into the gang who may not wish to join, to run the risk of having a family member murdered or being murdered oneself be projecting their beliefs onto an adolescent.

The issues are not only between the parent and the child. The influences of the society, many of which are extremely, pathological, play an important role in decisions and life path. These are the A influences that constitute General Law. Isn't it the parent's thankless responsibility to be a buffer between them in order to protect the child until the child is old enough to make informed decisions for him/herself?

WEBGLIDER HERE: Is this struggle to escape the Law Of Quote boxes an example of the difficulty of escaping General Law? I

 

[Renaissance]

WEBGLLIDER HERE: I still can not figure out these quote boxes. First I couldn't get a quote inside one. Now I can't figure out how to get my post separated from Shane's quote box. This must be terribly confusing for everyone. I apologize.

Holey muddled quote boxes batman! :) It may be better for you to write the quote boxes manually. For each:

[quote]

there needs a corresponding end:

[/quote]

These are referred to as tags. You need make sure you have the word of the function you want (in this case the word 'quote') in the beginning tag and in the end tag. Make sure to use the straight-lined brackets too and use the '/' before the function word at the end tag. When you have quote boxes within quote boxes, make sure you have the correct number of start tags and end tags.

I certainly agree that to sit a child down and give a lecture about A, B, and C influences is counter-productive for many reasons one of which is that such a lecture would elicit utter boredom in the child.

But is it wrong to teach him/her about specific examples of harmful A influences without defining what an A influence is esosterically and giving a lecture about it?

For example, should a parent allow a young her child to determine his/her own bedtime when he/she must leave the house early the next morning? If a child wants to pursue a diet consisting of sugar and hydrogenated fat, is that an expression of free will or is it the result of the conditioning of marketers whose paychecks depend on seducing children to buy their products?

Doesn't the parent have the responsibility to protect the child's health and physical safety even if the child's wishes go against his/her own interests?

The examples you mentioned are a part of ordinary life. I think the solutions are for the most part of ordinary life as well. I think in this instance esoteric knowledge is most helpful in developing the need for 'getting back to basics'. One of the stories Gurdjieff provided this with is in his story of the the good obyvatel.

In steps the parent who is also at the effect of the same psychopathic society, who tries to provide a counterveiling influence, and finds him/herself opposed on all sides. For example, when my daughter was small, I tried to provide healthy foods for her, and to keep her away from sugar. I was astonished that the parents of her friends would secretly give her candy when I was not there. It was their little secret.

Some of their children are now overweight, hyperactive, and are or were on ritalin or other drugs. My daughter has some difficulties focusing her attention and I'll never know if it's because of the junk she eats or for some other reason. I won't medicate her, and she continues to indulge in sugar.

I can not see how she exercised her free will in that scenario, or what lesson she learned since she has no basis of comparison of how she may have been if she had grown up without sugar.

Yeah, I can relate to this one from when I was a kid. Ever have a birthday carob cake (a chocolate substitute known around hippie households)? How about being sent to school with a sprout filled pita-bread sandwich? Dis-gust-ing. The later was embarrassing too. You could say that could be one of my first memories of the 'General Law', however to a child it is psychologically and fundamentally different. Forms of syntony need time to develop before higher functioning can be expected, and I think this means their wanting to engage in the same activities as their peers can be healthy at its respective level. When a child engages in unhealthy peer activity, they may be other things going on that need addressing. And even still, if a child naturally feels maladjusted to his or her peers, that could be signs of extreme growth (see Theory of Positive Disintigration). I certainly agree healthy eating is essential for a child, however, I've known 'health-nut' parents who've used food as a means of control. I don't see anything wrong with giving a kid a sugar snack every once and a while. On the other hand, 'never' seems a bit overbearing and can probably lead to overindulgence when the opportunity arises.

Determining a need: the hungry person needs a job so he or she can eat.

But what if there are no jobs? What if the person is so hungry he's too weak to look for one?
What if the society he/she lives in has puposely eliminated jobs as an indirect method of population control? Where is the free will of person in that situation?

Right. I was giving an example of why determining the needs of others is self serving.

I've had a lot of contact with adolescents who join gangs because of the actual need for protection against other gangs or to find a surrogate for a family that is either dysfunctional or absent. These are real needs, but there is a real price to pay for fulfilling those needs in that way. Would an adult who advises them that the price they may have to pay to fulfill those needs may entail being required to kill someone, to reveal information about addresses of family members, to smuggle weapons in private body parts, to sell or take drugs, to engage in group sex, to jump someone into the gang who may not wish to join, to run the risk of having a family member murdered or being murdered oneself be projecting their beliefs onto an adolescent.

How would it be projecting beliefs? It's pretty much stating plain fact. It's the gangs that are projecting beliefs onto susceptible youth, and who are not seeing or fufilling their real needs. Using the above type of 'reality' therapy is probably one of the more effective things that can be offered to them.

The issues are not only between the parent and the child. The influences of the society, many of which are extremely, pathological, play an important role in decisions and life path. These are the A influences that constitute General Law.

I don't think all A influences are pathological, although the pathological variety seems to have a big part in maintaining them. A good obyvatel, as mentioned above, still lives under the general law and with A influences, however his machine, while not striving for higher centers, is still in good working order.

Isn't it the parent's thankless responsibility to be a buffer between them in order to protect the child until the child is old enough to make informed decisions for him/herself?

How will that help a child develop the skills needed to deal with such things upon becoming 'old enough'?

WEBGLIDER HERE: Is this struggle to escape the Law Of Quote boxes an example of the difficulty of escaping General Law?

Hmm... I could see how it could become the misadventures of Don 'quiote'...