FOTCM Statement of Principles

[kenlee]

Didn't Gurdjieff say that in the end the light always wins, but it's the job of those that are temporarily evil to "make it more interesting"? (I read this in a thread that I now cannot find, but I think it was from ISOTM)

Here's what is said about the evolutionary and involutionary process in the book In Search Of The Miraculous:

"The process of evolution, of that evolution which is possible for humanity as a whole, is completely analogous, to the process of evolution possible for the individual man. And it begins with the same thing, namely, a certain group of cells gradually becomes conscious; then it attracts to itself other cells, subordinates others, and gradually makes the whole organism serve its aims and not merely eat, drink, and sleep. This is evolution and there can be no other kind of evolution. In humanity as in individual man everything begins with the formation of a conscious nucleus. All the mechanical forces of life fight against the formation of this conscious nucleus in humanity, in just the same way as all mechanical habits, tastes and weaknesses fight against conscious self-remembering in man."

"Can it be said that there is a conscious force which fights against the evolution of humanity?" I asked.

"From a certain point of view it can be said," said G.

I am putting this on record because it would seem to contradict what he said before, namely, that there are only two forces struggling in the world—"consciousness" and "mechanicalness."

"Where can this force come from?" I asked.

"It would take a long time to explain," said G., "and it cannot have a practical significance for us at the present moment.

"There are two processes which are sometimes called 'involutionary' and 'evolutionary.' The difference between them is the following:

An involutionary process begins consciously in the Absolute but at the next step it already becomes mechanical—and it becomes more and more mechanical as it develops;

an evolutionary process begins half-consciously but it becomes more and more conscious as its develops.

But consciousness and conscious opposition to the evolutionary process can also appear at certain moments in the, involutionary process.

From where does this consciousness come?

From the evolutionary process of course.

The evolutionary process must proceed without interruption. Any stop causes a separation from the fundamental process. Such separate fragments of consciousnesses which have been stopped in their development can also unite and at any rate for a certain time can live by struggling against the evolutionary process. After all it merely makes the evolutionary process more interesting.

Instead of struggling against mechanical forces there may, at certain moments, be a struggle against the intentional opposition of fairly powerful forces though they are not of course comparable with those which direct the evolutionary process. These opposing forces may sometimes even conquer.

The reason for this consists in the fact that the forces guiding evolution have a more limited choice of means; in other words, they can only make use of certain means and certain methods. The opposing forces are not limited in their choice of means and they are able to make use of every means, even those which only give rise to a temporary success, and in the final result they destroy both evolution and involution at the point in question.

 

[Maranatha]

...the truth, as we know it currently, is that there really are two sides to the Universe, all the way up and down. Think about the yin-yang symbol. None is objectively "bad" or "good" as we understand those terms, but just the expression of either expansion or contraction.

Hence why psychopaths 'should' not change their fundamental nature. This means that it is not up to us to pass judgment on them in an objective sense, and to try to bring all the darkness to the light would actually be an expression of STS, not STO. A violation of free will, in other words. And you can't change a psycho even if you wanted to.

I recommend reading Illion's 'Darkness over Tibet'. It's a very small, easy book, but it sheds a lot of light on this whole duality thing.

Also, Laura goes into this in great detail throughout The Wave.

Thanks for the book recommendation, and I'll have to wait until I get further into the Wave to comment further on this perhaps. I would like to point out though, you're seeing this from the perspective of how-to-treat-the-psychopath whereas I'm trying to understand why you would tell a psychopath he should not change -- regardless of anyone outside himself. Why should a psychopath not try to change his ways? What is preventing him from switching tracks from involutionary to evolutionary? Are you saying it is simply impossible, it is not an option for him to choose? Or the momentum of his submission to mechanicalness prevents it?

 

[anart]

Thanks for the book recommendation, and I'll have to wait until I get further into the Wave to comment further on this perhaps.

I think a lot will make more sense once you get through the Wave.

I would like to point out though, you're seeing this from the perspective of how-to-treat-the-psychopath whereas I'm trying to understand why you would tell a psychopath he should not change -- regardless of anyone outside himself. Why should a psychopath not try to change his ways?

Would you tell a crocodile to change his ways?? He can't, he's a crocodile, no matter how much you think he should be a house cat.

 

[Maranatha]

Currently how I see it is, it is not possible for any being to lose their place -- they can either sit where they are and waste time and traverse a lot of side roads playing evil, or they can move up.

You continue to define progress as your perception of "moving up" as if there is a limit to the type of learning a soul can engage in. Just because you have a certain perception of what is 'good' and what is 'evil' does not mean that the Universe sees it the same way. It's kind of ridiculous to think that any soul just "sits where they are" and doesn't progress in one direction or another (and I can't define those directions concretely because I can't see them from my vantage) in any lifetime. They would have to, otherwise why incarnate at all? There is no "place" for them to lose, all there is is lessons.

I suppose my problem has to do with the fact that I see those "moving down" as moving in falseness, so they are not truly going anywhere. Incarnate to stop imagining that you are moving down, shed your layers of falseness, and get on with the real growing. ARGH... I can see where my ACIM programming is coming in here. I see it as, "moving down" means falling deeper asleep, whereas "moving up" means dreaming that you are awakening, and then -- presumably -- actually awakening (waking up to the real). But can any journey in falseness or dreaming be said to be going anywhere, up/down/etc?

A higher density of consciousness can also be (from your subjective perspective) "evil". While it appears to be true that an entity can only progress so far "up" on such a path, that does not mean they don't progress, it just has a different ultimate outcome.

What is that "different ultimate outcome"?

I was led to believe from reading the first Ra book (I heard the C's say Ra is only 67% accurate -- don't know if that is still the case) that STS could not get "past" 4D. I got the impression that you could indeed raise your consciousness while being STS, but that you couldn't get past 4D until you shifted to STO. Maybe I am WAY OFF on that...

Thanks

 

[Maranatha]

Would you tell a crocodile to change his ways?? He can't, he's a crocodile, no matter how much you think he should be a house cat.

Okay but regardless of what you think or how you wish the psychopath should be... there he is sitting there, are you going to let him do what he wants as per honoring Free Will or are you to tell him, "You should not change"?

What if he wakes up one day and decides he'd like to change? But then he reads on the forum that he "shouldn't"? Do you see why I am confused? :(

 

[anart]

Would you tell a crocodile to change his ways?? He can't, he's a crocodile, no matter how much you think he should be a house cat.

Okay but regardless of what you think or how you wish the psychopath should be... there he is sitting there, are you going to let him do what he wants as per honoring Free Will or are you to tell him, "You should not change"?

What if he wakes up one day and decides he'd like to change? But then he reads on the forum that he "shouldn't"? Do you see why I am confused? :(

No, I'm afraid that I'm not following your point. Essential psychopaths cannot change - they are genetically hard wired to be how they are. Perhaps that is where your confusion is coming from? You seem to be quite stuck on one word and I'm having difficulty grasping why that is. Perhaps others can offer more help.

 

[Oxajil]

Would you tell a crocodile to change his ways?? He can't, he's a crocodile, no matter how much you think he should be a house cat.

Okay but regardless of what you think or how you wish the psychopath should be... there he is sitting there, are you going to let him do what he wants as per honoring Free Will or are you to tell him, "You should not change"?

What if he wakes up one day and decides he'd like to change? But then he reads on the forum that he "shouldn't"? Do you see why I am confused? :(

It is highly unlikely that a true psychopath will wake up one day and decide he'd like to change. This is not an opinion, it is pretty much a fact. See this quote from the book "Personality Disorders" by Emmelkamp and Kamphuis:

Effects of treatment of antisocial personality disorder are limited and it is doubtful that current interventions have anything to offer to true psychopaths. There is evidence that these core psychopathic features have a strong genetic base, and are highly treatment resistant."

This is a book that bases its conclusions on a lot of studies. When you lack objective information, Maranatha, I think you can get easily confused. Maybe it would help if you would read more on psychopathy?

 

[Maranatha]

Would you tell a crocodile to change his ways?? He can't, he's a crocodile, no matter how much you think he should be a house cat.

Okay but regardless of what you think or how you wish the psychopath should be... there he is sitting there, are you going to let him do what he wants as per honoring Free Will or are you to tell him, "You should not change"?

What if he wakes up one day and decides he'd like to change? But then he reads on the forum that he "shouldn't"? Do you see why I am confused? :(

No, I'm afraid that I'm not following your point. Essential psychopaths cannot change - they are genetically hard wired to be how they are. Perhaps that is where your confusion is coming from? You seem to be quite stuck on one word and I'm having difficulty grasping why that is. Perhaps others can offer more help.

I think to say that psychopaths should not change is a violation of Free Will. But if psychopaths cannot be said to possess Free Will, then we don't have a problem. But if they don't possess Free Will, then isn't that the same as saying they are "soulless"? And the C's say (in that thread that was posted by Palinurus a minute ago, "STS is not soulless."

A: The bottom line is this: You are occupying 3rd density. You are by nature, STS. You can be an STO candidate, but you are NOT STO until you are on 4th density. You will NEVER grasp the meaning of these attempted conceptualizations until you are at 4th and above.
Q: She also says: 'And there are soulless ones.' Is this true?
A: No.
Q: I think that what she means by this is that there are those who are STS in their very essence and many people judge this to be a 'soulless' condition, I believe.
A: But STS is not "soulless." -- Session 980919 about halfway down

 

[Maranatha]

It is highly unlikely that a true psychopath will wake up one day and decide he'd like to change. This is not an opinion, it is pretty much a fact. See this quote from the book "Personality Disorders" by Emmelkamp and Kamphuis:

Effects of treatment of antisocial personality disorder are limited and it is doubtful that current interventions have anything to offer to true psychopaths. There is evidence that these core psychopathic features have a strong genetic base, and are highly treatment resistant."

This is a book that bases its conclusions on a lot of studies. When you lack objective information, Maranatha, I think you can get easily confused. Maybe it would help if you would read more on psychopathy?

Yes.

It just seems like a rather bleak outlook. Perhaps instead of meaning, "Psychopaths should not try to change," what the principles are saying is, "We are not saying that psychopaths should try to change." To me it makes a huge difference.

 

[Buddy]

It just seems like a rather bleak outlook.

You might want to read Oxajil's reply and quote more carefully. I think no one has any idea what quantum impetus might influence future rounds of sorting and selecting in a genome or a family or individual's genetic algorithms or how genes are read by the transcription process.

So, there's probably less need for "bleak" to define an outlook on the potentials of psychopaths and more for danger from their authoritarian followers who serve as their 'mouths, hands and feet.'

Perhaps instead of meaning, "Psychopaths should not try to change," what the principles are saying is, "We are not saying that psychopaths should try to change." To me it makes a huge difference.

Personally, I thought the phrase "nor should they" could have been left out without taking away the point of the sentence or of its context. After all, Ponerogenesis is talking about how a psychopath would likely have no qualms about projecting a "confess and convert" thing in order to infiltrate a religious group and rise to the top of the heirarchy, OSIT.

 

[Oxajil]

It just seems like a rather bleak outlook.

From our point of view, that may seem like a rather bleak outlook. But from the point of view of psychopaths themselves, they probably couldn't care less, it's how they are. They are simply not capable of changing in the sense you may be thinking of. And maybe on some kind of level they chose for that kind of 'life'.

I agree with Buddy that that phrase could be left out, or kept with some additional information/explanation? Fwiw.

 

[Palinurus]

Personally, I thought the phrase "nor should they" could have been left out without taking away the point of the sentence or of its context. After all, Ponerogenesis is talking about how a psychopath would likely have no qualms about projecting a "confess and convert" thing in order to infiltrate a religious group and rise to the top of the heirarchy, OSIT.

As usual, context is everything and therefore I agree with Buddy on this one.

We recognize that the inability to recognize pathological forms of behavior, and thus pathology itself, within one’s social milieu is the First Criterion of Ponerogenesis. When groups base their understanding of Evil on unfounded and simplistic beliefs, as are propagated by the vast majority of religious organizations, they risk being used as tools by the very Evil they claim to oppose. In such a dynamic, the aforementioned lack of discernment works in conjunction with human moral failings, and it is common to see religious groups denouncing the “Evil” of others, whether homosexuals or people of different ethnicities or religions, while ignoring the deplorable behavior of their own members, and even engaging in pathological behavior themselves.

As such, we repudiate the notions that a “statement of faith” absolves one of their “sins”. Psychopaths cannot change their nature, nor should they, and yet the mere declaration of being a “good Christian” or “born again”, for example, is often taken to be sufficient grounds for their inclusion in religious groups, and denial of the psychopath’s true nature.

PaleoChristianity has thus always taken efforts to protect against the inclusion of psychopaths within their midst by refusing their access to positions of influence within the group. The first reaction of those who would destroy fairness and justice to such exclusion is of course the cry that such groups are “unfair” and “unjust”. We repudiate such interpretations, asking instead, is it “fair” to allow the fox to enter the henhouse or the wolf to guard the sheep?

To me it's crystal clear that in this context no statement of ontological value about the intrinsic state of psychopaths is meant to be made. It merely states that it's highly unlikely --given the nature of the beast, so to speak-- that any declaration about whatever coming from psychopaths will have much truth or faithfulness in it. Implicit in this is a warning to exclude psychopaths and their ilk from the Fellowship, just because they cannot change their ways. Nor should we expect them to do so, or demand that they change their nature. This gives the passage a whole other emphasis than Maranatha appears to have read into it. Or so it seems to me. FWIW.

 

[Carl]

Yes.

Perhaps instead of meaning, "Psychopaths should not try to change," what the principles are saying is, "We are not saying that psychopaths should try to change." To me it makes a huge difference.

That is the way I read it, and -I assume- the way it was meant to come across.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

To me it's crystal clear that in this context no statement of ontological value about the intrinsic state of psychopaths is meant to be made. It merely states that it's highly unlikely --given the nature of the beast, so to speak-- that any declaration about whatever coming from psychopaths will have much truth or faithfulness in it. Implicit in this is a warning to exclude psychopaths and their ilk from the Fellowship, just because they cannot change their ways. Nor should we expect them to do so, or demand that they change their nature. This gives the passage a whole other emphasis than Maranatha appears to have read into it. Or so it seems to me. FWIW.

The bolded part above is essentially what is trying to be conveyed in that passage.

 

[Maranatha]

It just seems like a rather bleak outlook.

You might want to read Oxajil's reply and quote more carefully. I think no one has any idea what quantum impetus might influence future rounds of sorting and selecting in a genome or a family or individual's genetic algorithms or how genes are read by the transcription process.

So, there's probably less need for "bleak" to define an outlook on the potentials of psychopaths and more for danger from their authoritarian followers who serve as their 'mouths, hands and feet.'

Hi Buddy, interesting and a little over my head right now with that 'quantum impetus' thing. But may I ask for clarification on something: when you say 'You might want to read Oxajil's reply and quote more carefully' are you referring to when s/he said,

When you lack objective information, Maranatha, I think you can get easily confused.

? Perhaps I'm making a wrong conclusion here, but is that a personal 'you' instead of a generic one? When I reread it I got the impression s/he was saying I lack objective information in the sense that I have no objectivity -- me personally. I'm wondering if that is why you suggested that I didn't get something.

I suppose I'm calling it "bleak" because I figure if there's more of a chance for psychopaths to gain a Conscience, then there's more hope across the board for everybody to grow their Conscience. But from what Anart was saying, it sounds like they are on a different spiral separate from us where that would not make sense. I just keep thinking of the P's in Bringers of the Dawn saying that the "the black T-shirts" ARE us.