fine articles

Anart:

I very much appreciate your explaining the concept of the "esoteric circle". It is an intriguing concept, one that brings to mind similar ideas about the achievements of small groups benefitting the whole (the "Hundredth Monkey Effect" comes to mind). However, it would seem to remain a highly theoretical idea, one that exists in potentiality only.

I suggest that the issue of STO/STS *is* relevant, as a group of individuals in which "all understand each other, there can be no misunderstandings and no actions not based on this understanding" would also have to have achieved a unity of INTENT -- and it seems to me that cannot be achieved by humans still in the STS orientation. For it would require a 100% dedication/transparency to the group. My thinking is, of course, based on the assumption that the C's are correct in their assertion that humans can evolve to STO-candidacy only while still in third-density existence.

Do you believe that the kind of "esoteric circles" that Gurdjieff describes have existed and/or do exist?
 
PepperFritz said:
My thinking is, of course, based on the assumption that the C's are correct in their assertion that humans can evolve to STO-candidacy only while still in third-density existence.
I thought it was the opposite - that we cannot be STO in our current state?

Edit: Thanks for clarification below, PepperFritz, I did misread it.
 
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
PepperFritz said:
My thinking is, of course, based on the assumption that the C's are correct in their assertion that humans can evolve to STO-candidacy only while still in third-density existence.
I thought it was the opposite - that we cannot be STO in our current state?
Yes, that is what I meant. But I see how you could misread what I wrote. Therefore, let me rephrase the above sentence:

"...in their assertion that that, while still in third-density, humans can evolve only as far as STO-candidacy." (i.e. Third-density humans are STS by nature, and cannot achieve an STO orientation until they reach 4th density. The most they can achieve in third-density is being an "STO candidate".)

Hope that clears it up.
 
PepperFritz said:
However, it would seem to remain a highly theoretical idea, one that exists in potentiality only.
Does that mean that you consider the STS/STO dynamic to not be theoretical?

pf said:
I suggest that the issue of STO/STS *is* relevant, as a group of individuals in which "all understand each other, there can be no misunderstandings and no actions not based on this understanding" would also have to have achieved a unity of INTENT
Do you mean relevant to the 'esoteric circle' concept or relevant in general? I never suggested it was not relevant in general (though it is, as most things we discuss here, theoretical - until we can KNOW - which, at this state is quite difficult). Also, you seem to be thinking that there is something inherently 'wrong' with STS - that is not the case, it is as valid a mode of existence as STO, it is simply different. If the Universe is indeed in balance, then it seems that both are necessary.

pf said:
-- and it seems to me that cannot be achieved by humans still in the STS orientation.
Why not?

pf said:
For it would require a 100% dedication/transparency to the group.
Actually, it's much more about internal development than just transparency with a group. It is a 'development from within' much more than an 'aligning without'. Why would you think that an STS entity would not be capable - if it were an STS-oriented esoteric group?

pf said:
My thinking is, of course, based on the assumption that the C's are correct in their assertion that humans can evolve to STO-candidacy only while still in third-density existence.
I don't see how this has any bearing at all on the development and existence of an esoteric circle.

pf said:
Do you believe that the kind of "esoteric circles" that Gurdjieff describes have existed and/or do exist?
I find it quite probable - if not certain - due to a myriad of clues, signs, signals and works passed down through the ages. It has nothing to do with belief. I think you may be misunderstanding the entire premise of 'esoteric circle' and projecting some qualities upon it that you see as 'only' STO.

I don't know that this is necessarily the case, as it really has to do with developing a fused magnetic center, which, as we know is possible within either dynamic, though from what we understand the process may differ. I hope this helps clarify the idea a bit, but I get the feeling that it might not, so perhaps others can chime in with more clarity than I seem to be able to muster today.
 
anart said:
PepperFritz said:
However, it would seem to remain a highly theoretical idea, one that exists in potentiality only.
Does that mean that you consider the STS/STO dynamic to not be theoretical?
No, not at all. The idea that someone could be STO in orientation *has* to be theoretical, since (theoretically) such individuals do not exist in our third-density world and we therefore have no way of determining if such an orientation is even possible. Likewise, without actual flesh-and-blood examples/experiences of such "esoteric circles" and their "perfect understanding" with one another, we also have no way of objectively determining if such a thing is possible, so it also remains theoretical.

anart said:
pf said:
I suggest that the issue of STO/STS *is* relevant, as a group of individuals in which "all understand each other, there can be no misunderstandings and no actions not based on this understanding" would also have to have achieved a unity of INTENT
Do you mean relevant to the 'esoteric circle' concept or relevant in general?
The former.

anart said:
...you seem to be thinking that there is something inherently 'wrong' with STS...
No, not at all. Not sure how you would have gotten that impression from what I wrote.

anart said:
pf said:
-- and it seems to me that cannot be achieved by humans still in the STS orientation.
Why not?
I gave my reasons for thinking so in my original post. Here they are again:

I suggest that the issue of STO/STS *is* relevant, as a group of individuals in which "all understand each other, there can be no misunderstandings and no actions not based on this understanding" would also have to have achieved a unity of INTENT -- and it seems to me that cannot be achieved by humans still in the STS orientation. For it would require a 100% dedication/transparency to the group. My thinking is, of course, based on the assumption that the C's are correct in their assertion that humans can evolve to STO-candidacy only while still in third-density existence.

anart said:
pf said:
For it would require a 100% dedication/transparency to the group.
Why would you think that an STS entity would not be capable - if it were an STS-oriented esoteric group?
I believe both the C's and the Ra material both assert that (a) a 100% dedication to the STS orientation is not possible until 4th density, and also that (b) graduation to 4th density in the STS orientation is relatively rare.

anart said:
pf said:
My thinking is, of course, based on the assumption that the C's are correct in their assertion that humans can evolve to STO-candidacy only while still in third-density existence.
I don't see how this has any bearing at all on the development and existence of an esoteric circle.
Again, I stated my reasons for thinking so above.

anart said:
pf said:
Do you believe that the kind of "esoteric circles" that Gurdjieff describes have existed and/or do exist?
I find it quite probable - if not certain - due to a myriad of clues, signs, signals and works passed down through the ages. It has nothing to do with belief.
I apologize. I did not mean to imply that it did. Assuming that you yourself have not actually experienced such circles, I should have said "Do you think it possible/probable...."

anart said:
I think you may be misunderstanding the entire premise of 'esoteric circle' and projecting some qualities upon it that you see as 'only' STO.
Well, currently it does seem to me that an "esoteric circle" with the characteristics described by Gurdjieff would not be possible for third-density STS individuals due to the 100% dedication to the whole that would be necessary. But, yes, it is certainly possible that I may be misunderstanding the premise, and I appreciate your taking the time to try and clarify it. Obviously, I need to read more on the subject before expressing my opinions further.
 
pf said:
Well, currently it does seem to me that an "esoteric circle" with the characteristics described by Gurdjieff would not be possible for third-density STS individuals due to the 100% dedication to the whole that would be necessary.
You are confusing issues again, Pepperfritz. We are all STS - no need for 100% anything. Why would Gurdjieff have spoken about them if they were not possible in this density, on this Earth?

pf said:
But, yes, it is certainly possible that I may be misunderstanding the premise, and I appreciate your taking the time to try and clarify it. Obviously, I need to read more on the subject before expressing my opinions further.
Yes, I think that might be worth your while.
 
anart said:
Why would Gurdjieff have spoken about them if they were not possible in this density, on this Earth?
I do not work under the assumption that Gurdjieff was all knowing, and that there is no possibility of error/distortion in his teachings. So, for me, the question is irrelevant.
 
PepperFritz said:
anart said:
Why would Gurdjieff have spoken about them if they were not possible in this density, on this Earth?
I do not work under the assumption that Gurdjieff was all knowing, and that there is no possibility of error/distortion in his teachings. So, for me, the question is irrelevant.
Interesting. Where and when did I suggest Gurdjieff was all-knowing?

The question is irrelevant? How magnificently superior of you.

Pepperfritz, I'm not sure what is 'going on with you' the past few days but you seem to have an 'edge' to your posts that has yet to be evidenced here.

That, in itself is rather revealing, though I do wonder why.

You admit to having no real understanding of his teachings on this front, yet you continue to 'argue' that he is mistaken. Quite frankly, it is growing rather tiresome, simply because you lack the understanding to even discuss it thoroughly.

So, is something going on with you that necessitates this general contrary attitude, or are you simply unwilling to further your understanding on your own (as you said you would) 'before expressing your opinions further'?

Having studied Gurdjieff's Work and writings in some detail, I can assure you that his understanding far surpasses my own on pretty much every front and that it would very likely serve you well to become more acquainted with it.
 
anart said:
Where and when did I suggest Gurdjieff was all-knowing?
Well, at the risk of causing further offence, I simply do not know how else to interpret your question. To me, the clear implication was that Gurdjieff would not have presented that particular teaching if it were not true/accurate. Otherwise, I cannot understand why you asked it.

anart said:
...you continue to 'argue' that he is mistaken....
No, I have not reached that conclusion yet, let alone tried to argue it. Being open to the possibility that someone *may* be mistaken is not the same as thinking that he *is* mistaken. For me, the jury is till out on the question, pending further reading on my part. Which, obviously, I have not had a chance to do yet.

anart said:
So, is something going on with you that necessitates this general contrary attitude
I genuinely am at a loss as to what you are referring to, so cannot answer your question.

anart said:
...or are you simply unwilling to further your understanding on your own (as you said you would) 'before commenting further'?
It was not my intention to "comment further." You asked me a question, and I assumed (evidently, wrongly) that you wanted me to provide an honest answer. I thought it was a serious question, and not just a rhetorical one. I apologize for the error on my part, and you have my word that I will not answer further questions put to me on the subject until I have read further.
 
webglider said:
Now the strange result of this story is that they did effect change, but it was change that was opposite to the stated AIM.
Yeah, lack of knowledge and understanding will do that. That's what the real nasty, wishful-thinking psychos never consider. They always get to a point where they think they've got EVERYTHING figured out.

webglider said:
So that leads to another question: Is there any chance, even if Gurdjieff's conditions are met, of escaping the control system?
If you look at the example of Fulcanelli, there appears to be a chance to "escape" even as an individual. It does appear to be a pretty rare kind of event though. The way I see it at the moment, there are 3 main possibilities:

1) The "200" conscious people create a nonlinear effect that eventually overcomes the hypnotic sleep of the masses, thanks also to the shocks and pressure delivered by the General Law. The world pulls back from the precipice and everything gets better.

2) The "200" conscious people try their best, but everything still goes "Kaboom! Splat!" anyway, and it all turns out to be for nothing.

3) The "200" conscious people try their best, but everything still goes "Kaboom! Splat!" anyway, however only the conscious people escape by virtue of being "who you are and what you see", and the natural process of evolution accommodates this.

I don't think we have enough data to really say any of these possibilities is the most probable (except maybe 2). It looks to me like you are trying to extrapolate the "big picture outcome" from only a few small details. That's not going to work. If you have an uncompressed text file (say, about 10K in size) and lose a kilobyte or so of random characters, you'll probably still be able to the read it. Your comprehension skills will fill in the blanks. Now, if you have the same text file compressed down to 2K, you can't afford to lose that 1K of data, because then the file won't uncompress properly, and you won't be able to read anything.

In this "Matrix" reality, if you will, it seems we are looking at everything in "code". Until we uncompress it, we won't be able to read the whole story. That's why we need to get any and all data we can - every extra byte is one step closer toward uncompressing the "big picture" file which contains the crucial information humanity needs. If we persist in trying to uncompress the file using only one element of data - for example, linguistics - we'll never get anything other than gobbledygook ASCII characters. Same thing if we try to substitute data where it is not appropriate - for instance, using the Bible as a historical document. Garbage In = Garbage Out.


FWIW.
 
PepperFritz said:
Seems to me that the only way that could be achieved is if the mind, thoughts, and intentions of all were somehow transparently available to all
PepperFritz said:
Seems to me that if you accept the C's assertion that all third-density humans on earth are STS in nature (and can hope to aspire to be "STO candidates" only), then such "transparency" would not be possible. But I am, of course, open to another way of looking at it....
Pepper, it seems like you are attached to the idea of "transperency" as a requirement for such a group, although you truly do not seem to fully understand how such a group could come about according to Gurdjieff and are filling in this lack of understanding with an idea of how you think it might work. However, while G's idea of this group is based around his other "teachings" regarding the development of man, your idea is not based on the same concepts, and as such you're inadvertently describing a different kind of group altogether than the sort that G had in mind, if that makes sense.

That's why I think Anart suggested further reading to get a better understanding of G's meaning first. And I honestly don't think Anart said that G wouldn't say that unless it was true. The way I understood it was, G has a knack for talking about things that are directly applicable to humanity and very practical for our development. And so it would be very unlike him to discuss things that are only possible for higher level beings. So if he says something that seems to not make sense or be possible, we should at least ask the question of why would he say something like this, and instead of making our own assumptions to fill in the blanks, see if his other work might offer an explanation.

After all, we're dealing with pretty serious esoteric concepts here, and if we know anything about what G and others have tried to convey - it's that we're machines. And it would be unrealistic to expect things that stand against our programs and conditioning to be easy to understand and make perfect sense to our machine. So that's at least one more reason to be very careful in our assessment of any such material and to not rush to any conclusions. Wrong knowledge really is worse than no knowledge at all.


Together with the other reading, check out these cassiopedia entries which I think can help clarify:

http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Esoteric%2C_Mesoteric%2C_Exoteric
http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/4th_Way
http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Man_1%2C_2_and_3
http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Centers
http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Buffers
http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Thinking%2C_Emotional
http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/General_Law
http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Personality
 
PepperFritz said:
anart said:
Where and when did I suggest Gurdjieff was all-knowing?
Well, at the risk of causing further offence, I simply do not know how else to interpret your question.
PepperFritz, it's not about "causing offence". Look again at what you wrote:

pf said:
Well, currently it does seem to me that an "esoteric circle" with the characteristics described by Gurdjieff would not be possible for third-density STS individuals due to the 100% dedication to the whole that would be necessary.
Can you see that this is an assumption on your part? Who says that 100% dedication is necessary to have an esoteric circle? Who says 100% dedication is necessary for anything? For example, Ra states that an STO candidate need only be polarized 51% to STO. I get the feeling that this phrase "100% dedication" is a symbol of something in your inner life - something that causes a conflict within you. Am I right?

anart said:
Why would Gurdjieff have spoken about them if they were not possible in this density, on this Earth?
pf said:
I do not work under the assumption that Gurdjieff was all knowing, and that there is no possibility of error/distortion in his teachings. So, for me, the question is irrelevant.
Do you see here that you have refused to look at the point anart is making with her statement? Instead you seem to have had a knee-jerk "don't quote me the rules" program triggered or something.

anart said:
Interesting. Where and when did I suggest Gurdjieff was all-knowing?
pf said:
To me, the clear implication was that Gurdjieff would not have presented that particular teaching if it were not true/accurate. Otherwise, I cannot understand why you asked it.
She was asking it in order to present something that might make you think and reconsider an assumption you made. But you seem to have reacted further to it, translating it in your own mind into "Because Gurdjieff said so".

pf said:
anart said:
...you continue to 'argue' that he is mistaken....
No, I have not reached that conclusion yet, let alone tried to argue it. Being open to the possibility that someone *may* be mistaken is not the same as thinking that he *is* mistaken. For me, the jury is till out on the question, pending further reading on my part. Which, obviously, I have not had a chance to do yet.
I think it would be more productive for you to drop this line of rationalization and go back and examine the "100% dedication" assumption you made - paying particular attention to the emotional flavour attached to it.

It is interesting to observe when theoretical notions begin to percolate into the emotional life of an individual. It is at this point that the "Work" really begins...
 
othman said:
this is my first post in sott I am a constant reader to this site and I find some articles that is good to be posted in this site:

http://tamimbarghouti.net/Tamimweb/English/Articles/1mainArticles.htm

they are some articles to a palastinaian writer Tamim Barghouti which I found them great and represint the other side

sorrey for my bad englsih
Othman? Othman? Are you still with us?

This was quite an introduction to the forum.

Welcome!!!!!!!

I read all the articles and found them intriguing.

Thank you.
 
SAO said:
That's why I think Anart suggested further reading to get a better understanding of G's meaning first. And I honestly don't think Anart said that G wouldn't say that unless it was true. The way I understood it was, G has a knack for talking about things that are directly applicable to humanity and very practical for our development. And so it would be very unlike him to discuss things that are only possible for higher level beings. So if he says something that seems to not make sense or be possible, we should at least ask the question of why would he say something like this, and instead of making our own assumptions to fill in the blanks, see if his other work might offer an explanation.
Yep, that's pretty much it.


Ryan said:
Do you see here that you have refused to look at the point anart is making with her statement? Instead you seem to have had a knee-jerk "don't quote me the rules" program triggered or something. [...] She was asking it in order to present something that might make you think and reconsider an assumption you made. But you seem to have reacted further to it, translating it in your own mind into "Because Gurdjieff said so".
And, yes, that was rather my point as well. So, Pepperfritz, perhaps with SAO's and Ryan's input you can understand a little more clearly what I was previously unable to get across.
 
Ryan said:
webglider said:
Now the strange result of this story is that they did effect change, but it was change that was opposite to the stated AIM.
Yeah, lack of knowledge and understanding will do that. That's what the real nasty, wishful-thinking psychos never consider. They always get to a point where they think they've got EVERYTHING figured out.

webglider said:
So that leads to another question: Is there any chance, even if Gurdjieff's conditions are met, of escaping the control system?
If you look at the example of Fulcanelli, there appears to be a chance to "escape" even as an individual. It does appear to be a pretty rare kind of event though. The way I see it at the moment, there are 3 main possibilities:

1) The "200" conscious people create a nonlinear effect that eventually overcomes the hypnotic sleep of the masses, thanks also to the shocks and pressure delivered by the General Law. The world pulls back from the precipice and everything gets better.

2) The "200" conscious people try their best, but everything still goes "Kaboom! Splat!" anyway, and it all turns out to be for nothing.

3) The "200" conscious people try their best, but everything still goes "Kaboom! Splat!" anyway, however only the conscious people escape by virtue of being "who you are and what you see", and the natural process of evolution accommodates this.

I don't think we have enough data to really say any of these possibilities is the most probable (except maybe 2). It looks to me like you are trying to extrapolate the "big picture outcome" from only a few small details. That's not going to work. If you have an uncompressed text file (say, about 10K in size) and lose a kilobyte or so of random characters, you'll probably still be able to the read it. Your comprehension skills will fill in the blanks. Now, if you have the same text file compressed down to 2K, you can't afford to lose that 1K of data, because then the file won't uncompress properly, and you won't be able to read anything.

In this "Matrix" reality, if you will, it seems we are looking at everything in "code". Until we uncompress it, we won't be able to read the whole story. That's why we need to get any and all data we can - every extra byte is one step closer toward uncompressing the "big picture" file which contains the crucial information humanity needs. If we persist in trying to uncompress the file using only one element of data - for example, linguistics - we'll never get anything other than gobbledygook ASCII characters. Same thing if we try to substitute data where it is not appropriate - for instance, using the Bible as a historical document. Garbage In = Garbage Out.


FWIW.
Wow. Thanks so much Ryan.

This really helps explains why I keep hitting against the same wall at the same time I think I'm chipping away at it.

I'm only seeing the part of the wall that I'm chipping away at and think it's the whole wall.

I don't even see enough of the wall to realize that it's not even just a wall, but part of a whole complex of walls that form an enclosure.

I think I'm outside trying to reach something that's hidden inside.

But I'm actually inside and can't even imagine the vastness of what is outside.

And then I realize that there are two enclosures: the one that that inprisons me in my own skin and thoughts; and the other that imprisions me in objective reality.

And the tools I have: words, life experiences muddled by lack of knowledge and discernment, valid information presented as misinformation and misinformation presented as truth, the five senses each one of which is surpassed by some creature in the animal kingdom, emotions dragging me instead of myself guiding them, unrecognized assumptions that I use to form hypothesis. . .

Okay, so now that I have been introduced to the concept that much of what I perceive is a code for something else, the need to develop new tools to crack a code I didn't suspect existed becomes that much more urgent.

And then something just flashed in my mind: that perhaps each bit of creation holds to key to some aspect of the code.

Maybe that's why there is so much willful destruction of the natural world, and the artifacts of ancient civilizations. Could it be that with each species that becomes extinct, with every artifact from the past that is destroyed or disappears, with every language that is not longer spoken, with every loss of perspective that could be offered by every culture that is demonized we lose some fragment of vital information?

The internet is like the Tower Of Babel in the sense that now all of humanity can combine their efforts to send and receive information, and work on projects simultaneously.

Perhaps that is part of the reason that so much destruction is happening so quickly; to destroy "...the crucial information humanity needs?"

Ryan said:
That's why we need to get any and all data we can - every extra byte is one step closer toward uncompressing the "big picture" file which contains the crucial information humanity needs.
 
Back
Top Bottom