Gregory James - Faux "Master"?

[GregoryJ]

I am willing to grow, and I wish to learn, I just don't feel hammering staunch assertions of guilt are the way to facilitate that and I was looking for something that better illustrated a little compassion and prudence, and maybe the development of trust before cutting in (in my mind, these are traits of one who is achieved in the Work)

Gregory, with respect, the words you use "hammering staunch assertions of guilt" are emotionally loaded and show that you are still not taking it objectively. You will notice that this thread is in the "The Work" section of the forums. In this section we try to be a mirror for others. Sometimes it is not the actual content which is the point, but rather the usefulness of the words in causing a response in others in order that they may see aspects of their false personality they need to Work on. We are not about guilt here, that is a path to paramoralizations. What is important is to recognize how we respond to others as we interact with them. Gurdjieff describes this as a key part of self-observation and indeed the crux of conscious suffering. Gurdjieff was often criticized similarly for being overly harsh and lacking gentleness when talking with students, but his point was to break the spine of the false personalities which held them prisoner, not to gently point out their problems.

It is important to realize that what we are dealing with is the Predator Mind. And it is this predator mind which holds us slave in every interaction. It comes out most vividly when dealing with others. It is at such time that we often fall into the trap of identifying with the external, considering internally. In such cases our personality falls back on automatic reactions to provide buffers to protect us psychologically from truths we are not ready or willing to hear.

Anart has certainly been one of the best mirrors in my work. As I am sure she has been with others. I guess I am trying to say that you should focus more on how you are reacting to other's responses here rather than nitpicking on the content. The number one focus of the forum is to help us all to break free from our false personalities, so that is what we should focus on.

Hope this has been of help.

Yes, that is very helpful, Abe, thank you.

Predator mind is something I am trying to understand better, not only in myself but also to discern it correctly in others. For instance, I feel much of the time when someone is pointing out someone's predator mind (etc.), they are really projecting and escaping/excusing their own recognition of predator mind within themselves. So yes, I hope this becomes more clear.

What you note as a teaching technique used by Gurdjieff is valid. We also use this approach – frequently, in fact – but we are very clear about how it is to be implemented – that empathic transference is key to its implementation, which means a level of cultivated trust and personal, face-to-face contact.

I should clarify that by "guilt" I really meant "blame"... but I know that's not the point you are making. Sorry, it's really late now and I need to get some sleep. So I'll check back mañana.

 

[Gertrudes]

GregoryJ, I apologize for the harsh tone of my second post, an example being: "what a load of (nasty word here)". I have just realized that when I read something that doesn't seem clear to me, or that seems to lack some substance, I tend to either ignore it or to become very impatient. This doesn't mean that I never speak nor write in a similar way myself, but simply that it is something that when perceived either in others or myself, has a negative effect in me. This is my own problem of course.
As a consequence, my tone became unnecessarily harsh and it could be read as if I myself were immune to doing the same mistake which, of course, in no way is true. There are ways of conveying what one thinks and I could have conveyed it much better then I did, again, I'm sorry for that.

 

[darksai]

Predator mind is something I am trying to understand better, not only in myself but also to discern it correctly in others. For instance, I feel much of the time when someone is pointing out someone's predator mind (etc.), they are really projecting and escaping/excusing their own recognition of predator mind within themselves. So yes, I hope this becomes more clear.

Feeling, and thinking (as in "I think so and so..") for that matter, is not the same as knowing. Feeling that someone's pointing out of your predator mind is the projection of their own is even more reason that you should suspect your own first, especially if it's "much of the time" as you say. Furthermore, if you are trying to understand it better, then you should at least be aware that you do not understand it and thus in no position to accurately know if it's simply yours in first place, let alone the projections of others.

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=GregoryJ]
Predator mind is something I am trying to understand better, not only in myself but also to discern it correctly in others. For instance, I feel much of the time when someone is pointing out someone's predator mind (etc.), they are really projecting and escaping/excusing their own recognition of predator mind within themselves. So yes, I hope this becomes more clear.[/quote]

Projection is indeed an important issue. In fact, I believe abeofarrell's post which led to the above reply is so spot on, it warrants expanding on from the humility angle.

"Predator mind" is the opposite of humility as the ancient Sufi masters seemed to have thought.

In one example, a Sufi master would whine whenever he converted all his enemies to friends. For one thing, it meant "feeling good about himself" was now a threat that must be guarded against. Also he risked losing his teaching edge due to having no disagreeing listeners. External Consideration doesn't seem so important when you no longer have to worry about being crippled the rest of the day from being kicked in the shin by an angry student who felt his opinions were treated disrespectfully.

Another example was a Sufi master who boarded a train with his students who insisted he take the window seat. As the train lurched to begin moving forward, some soot was dislodged from the roof above and blew into the master's window, turning him black as the ace of spades. The students blamed themselves, becoming outraged at this 'indignity to the master'. The master shot back that the very presence of an ego that would think "I don't deserve this" indicated that he did indeed deserve it (the part that insisted otherwise), so he would tolerate none of that fussiness from his students.

Hope the above helps more than it hinders, confuses or annoys. :)

Edit: added later:

You added something to my knowledge with your Eye of the Beholder article, so I hope I offered something of fair value in exchange.

 

[GregoryJ]

GregoryJ, I apologize for the harsh tone of my second post, an example being: "what a load of (nasty word here)". I have just realized that when I read something that doesn't seem clear to me, or that seems to lack some substance, I tend to either ignore it or to become very impatient. This doesn't mean that I never speak nor write in a similar way myself, but simply that it is something that when perceived either in others or myself, has a negative effect in me. This is my own problem of course.
As a consequence, my tone became unnecessarily harsh and it could be read as if I myself were immune to doing the same mistake which, of course, in no way is true. There are ways of conveying what one thinks and I could have conveyed it much better then I did, again, I'm sorry for that.

That goes a long way, Gertrudes, and speaks volumes for the Work.

By no means am I here to feel "comfortable", per se (not that you are suggesting I am) and again, criticism is fine, but I do know from my own practice that speaking one's mind precisely and affectively involves using no more malice and no less assertiveness than is needed. In other words, frankness is of great value in telling it like it is, and then there is contempt and undeserved ridicule – and sometimes the line is a bit obscure (subjectively). I did perceive your words as pretty darn harsh (but saw them as your's). I am moved by your apology. And I am glad to be getting to know you and look forward to working with you in the future.

Thanks.

 

[GregoryJ]

Predator mind is something I am trying to understand better, not only in myself but also to discern it correctly in others. For instance, I feel much of the time when someone is pointing out someone's predator mind (etc.), they are really projecting and escaping/excusing their own recognition of predator mind within themselves. So yes, I hope this becomes more clear.

Feeling, and thinking (as in "I think so and so..") for that matter, is not the same as knowing. Feeling that someone's pointing out of your predator mind is the projection of their own is even more reason that you should suspect your own first, especially if it's "much of the time" as you say. Furthermore, if you are trying to understand it better, then you should at least be aware that you do not understand it and thus in no position to accurately know if it's simply yours in first place, let alone the projections of others.

I see what you are saying. If you have read my essay, in the Eye of the Beholder (link below) then you know that I am well aware of the dynamics of the perceptions of the self. Thus, I agree with what you are saying. You will also note from said essay and my comments above that I am aware of the necessity to have frank discussions and relate in an effort to know objective clarity on any topic or non-topic (meaning that which is present but not being discussed). http://supremeboundlessway.com/2011/12/28/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder-right-relationship-objective-judgement/

And I meant that when I perceive a projection, it is not necessarily at me, but in general. "Much of the time" means "often when I see the circumstances arise", as opposed to literally "much of the time". Hope that's clear.

Can predator mind be perceived in another without it being my projection? I know it can. But indeed, I wish to understand it better – which is not to say that it is not understood at all, only that I see the possibility to refine my understanding of it. Predator mind, like any unconscious attribute has many layers and can be very subtle, tricking even the best of us if we are not open to understanding it better. Thanks for the help.

[quote author=GregoryJ]
Predator mind is something I am trying to understand better, not only in myself but also to discern it correctly in others. For instance, I feel much of the time when someone is pointing out someone's predator mind (etc.), they are really projecting and escaping/excusing their own recognition of predator mind within themselves. So yes, I hope this becomes more clear.

Projection is indeed an important issue. In fact, I believe abeofarrell's post which led to the above reply is so spot on, it warrants expanding on from the humility angle.

"Predator mind" is the opposite of humility as the ancient Sufi masters seemed to have thought.

In one example, a Sufi master would whine whenever he converted all his enemies to friends. For one thing, it meant "feeling good about himself" was now a threat that must be guarded against. Also he risked losing his teaching edge due to having no disagreeing listeners. External Consideration doesn't seem so important when you no longer have to worry about being crippled the rest of the day from being kicked in the shin by an angry student who felt his opinions were treated disrespectfully.

Another example was a Sufi master who boarded a train with his students who insisted he take the window seat. As the train lurched to begin moving forward, some soot was dislodged from the roof above and blew into the master's window, turning him black as the ace of spades. The students blamed themselves, becoming outraged at this 'indignity to the master'. The master shot back that the very presence of an ego that would think "I don't deserve this" indicated that he did indeed deserve it, so he would tolerate none of that fussiness from his students.

Hope the above helps more than it hinders, confuses or annoys. :)

Edit: added later:

You added something to my knowledge with your Eye of the Beholder article, so I hope I offered something of fair value in exchange.


[/quote]

Yes, Buddy. Very helpful. Thank you. And no annoyance or confusion.

 

[darksai]

Feeling, and thinking (as in "I think so and so..") for that matter, is not the same as knowing. Feeling that someone's pointing out of your predator mind is the projection of their own is even more reason that you should suspect your own first, especially if it's "much of the time" as you say. Furthermore, if you are trying to understand it better, then you should at least be aware that you do not understand it and thus in no position to accurately know if it's simply yours in first place, let alone the projections of others.

I see what you are saying.

Perhaps, but it is not enough to just say so. I am not convinced as you haven't responded to what I have actually said, but instead have have statements about yourself and what you claim to understand.

If you have read my essay, in the Eye of the Beholder (link below) then you know that I am well aware of the dynamics of the perceptions of the self. Thus, I agree with what you are saying.

Again, no I do not know, nor can I by reading your monologue; I do not presume to be at the level development where I can accurately judge the true understanding of another or whether they are simply reiterating their own version of accumulated information. Thus, I have no way telling whether or not you agree because I cannot assess your understanding of what I've said if you don't address the point I'm trying to make directly.

You will also note from said essay and my comments above that I am aware of the necessity to have frank discussions and relate in an effort to know objective clarity on any topic or non-topic (meaning that which is present but not being discussed). http://supremeboundlessway.com/2011/12/28/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder-right-relationship-objective-judgement/

It does seem that you are aware of the "necessity" (though what kind of awareness is not entirely certain), but, as others have also said in one way or another, talking about it and really doing it outside of a larger subjective bubble are worlds apart. That you have, in almost every post I've read, continued to try and convince everyone here of how much you understand about this or that, and backed yourself up with seemingly circular self-referencing makes it quite clear to many here that you're "missing the point" of what's being said.

And I meant that when I perceive a projection, it is not necessarily at me, but in general. "Much of the time" means "often when I see the circumstances arise", as opposed to literally "much of the time". Hope that's clear.

Firstly, whether it's at you or someone else is utterly irrelevant. This proves what I said above, that you're just not getting it and if you can't see why this is after having it pointed out explicitly, then I doubt you'll get very much of we're trying to say to you here. Secondly, it makes no sense at all to refer to situations when you're not perceiving projections; you're really splitting hairs on words here which very much comes across as attempt to justify yourself.

Can predator mind be perceived in another without it being my projection? I know it can. But indeed, I wish to understand it better – which is not to say that it is not understood at all, only that I see the possibility to refine my understanding of it. Predator mind, like any unconscious attribute has many layers and can be very subtle, tricking even the best of us if we are not open to understanding it better.

I also know it can. I would be willing to bet that almost everyone on this forum would agree that it is indeed a possibility. I agree, though I would like to also point out that no matter how much one understands it, without the effort to identify it in practice and pro-actively defuse it's influences, the net effect is the same though there is little or no understanding of it all.

Thanks for the help.

You're welcome.

 

[GregoryJ]

Feeling, and thinking (as in "I think so and so..") for that matter, is not the same as knowing. Feeling that someone's pointing out of your predator mind is the projection of their own is even more reason that you should suspect your own first, especially if it's "much of the time" as you say. Furthermore, if you are trying to understand it better, then you should at least be aware that you do not understand it and thus in no position to accurately know if it's simply yours in first place, let alone the projections of others.

I see what you are saying.

Perhaps, but it is not enough to just say so. I am not convinced as you haven't responded to what I have actually said, but instead have have statements about yourself and what you claim to understand.

If you have read my essay, in the Eye of the Beholder (link below) then you know that I am well aware of the dynamics of the perceptions of the self. Thus, I agree with what you are saying.

Again, no I do not know, nor can I by reading your monologue; I do not presume to be at the level development where I can accurately judge the true understanding of another or whether they are simply reiterating their own version of accumulated information. Thus, I have no way telling whether or not you agree because I cannot assess your understanding of what I've said if you don't address the point I'm trying to make directly.

You will also note from said essay and my comments above that I am aware of the necessity to have frank discussions and relate in an effort to know objective clarity on any topic or non-topic (meaning that which is present but not being discussed). http://supremeboundlessway.com/2011/12/28/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder-right-relationship-objective-judgement/

It does seem that you are aware of the "necessity" (though what kind of awareness is not entirely certain), but, as others have also said in one way or another, talking about it and really doing it outside of a larger subjective bubble are worlds apart. That you have, in almost every post I've read, continued to try and convince everyone here of how much you understand about this or that, and backed yourself up with seemingly circular self-referencing makes it quite clear to many here that you're "missing the point" of what's being said.

And I meant that when I perceive a projection, it is not necessarily at me, but in general. "Much of the time" means "often when I see the circumstances arise", as opposed to literally "much of the time". Hope that's clear.

Firstly, whether it's at you or someone else is utterly irrelevant. This proves what I said above, that you're just not getting it and if you can't see why this is after having it pointed out explicitly, then I doubt you'll get very much of we're trying to say to you here. Secondly, it makes no sense at all to refer to situations when you're not perceiving projections; you're really splitting hairs on words here which very much comes across as attempt to justify yourself.

Can predator mind be perceived in another without it being my projection? I know it can. But indeed, I wish to understand it better – which is not to say that it is not understood at all, only that I see the possibility to refine my understanding of it. Predator mind, like any unconscious attribute has many layers and can be very subtle, tricking even the best of us if we are not open to understanding it better.

I also know it can. I would be willing to bet that almost everyone on this forum would agree that it is indeed a possibility. I agree, though I would like to also point out that no matter how much one understands it, without the effort to identify it in practice and pro-actively defuse it's influences, the net effect is the same though there is little or no understanding of it all.

Thanks for the help.

You're welcome.

Thank you for the conscientious breakdown. ...which is of course to say thank you for the breakdown of my situation that you have perceived and supplied rather than implying that your conscience has broken down. ;)

Perhaps, but it is not enough to just say so. I am not convinced as you haven't responded to what I have actually said, but instead have have statements about yourself and what you claim to understand.

This is important in a discussion, no? I am not stating what I understand to impress anyone or rise in your esteem. And I'm not contesting what you are saying, just trying to understand what you would like to hear from my side. ...that I acknowledge my predator mind? Certainly I do and I have been working on it for many years. This is again not to say that I understand so much, only that seldom state anything, verbally or written, that I am not clear about (at least in my own reckoning), though I do acknowledge that my clarity is not perfect and requires further work.

Perhaps I just need to get a better handle on how things transpire here in the forum. It seems to me that certain members are considered something of an "authority" and their assertions should be heeded and not questioned too blatantly. Maybe I'm wrong about this. If that's the way it is, that's fine, I'll just have to adjust to this reckoning.

It seemed to me that maybe some people rise to a certain level in the forum and then become beyond question, but then fall into the same trap they endeavor to point out for others. I certainly was never accusing anyone of anything and I know I have been sincere in so far as I am able. The fact that my sincerity has been severely (subjective, I know) questioned brought up questions for me concerning A) the protocol here, and B) the level of perspicacity of some members – whether or not it it as refined as they tend to think or whether or not I am simply not privy to some manner of perceiving things via a forum... as I have indicated several times.

I am not attached to finding out the answers to these questions at this time and am aware that perhaps further Work and relationship/observation of this group will need to take place prior to arriving at clarity with regard to these questions. I hope this better addresses your statement, but I have a feeling (best I can do – i.e. my observation) that I am still expected to just accept the criticism I have been given. I do accept it for what I perceive it to be ( I will not insist that I know), but that does not mean that I agree with all put forth – and frankly I cannot see how I am expected to. I will however continue to give it a lot of thought.

It does seem that you are aware of the "necessity" (though what kind of awareness is not entirely certain), but, as others have also said in one way or another, talking about it and really doing it outside of a larger subjective bubble are worlds apart. That you have, in almost every post I've read, continued to try and convince everyone here of how much you understand about this or that, and backed yourself up with seemingly circular self-referencing makes it quite clear to many here that you're "missing the point" of what's being said.

As I have said, I don't think it is possible to determine one way or another another's level of awareness, least of all via a forum. It is you/my awareness, after all. The best we can do is point to it.

My aim in presenting my understanding is moving forward, not circular. I guess that is what you mean by "circular self-referencing". If you care to present precise examples, I am open to exploring and/or contemplating them. I'm not sure about saying it's "quite clear" that I'm missing the point. I think it is only clear that I am not agreeing with it.

you're really splitting hairs on words here which very much comes across as attempt to justify yourself.

It seems to me that I am held accountable (we all are) for every word and I am doing my best to be clear. Language is not a precise means of communication, especially the written word, but it is what we have. I am aware of the probability that there is misunderstanding on my part and also on the part of others.

I also know it can. I would be willing to bet that almost everyone on this forum would agree that it is indeed a possibility. I agree, though I would like to also point out that no matter how much one understands it, without the effort to identify it in practice and pro-actively defuse it's influences, the net effect is the same though there is little or no understanding of it all.

If you have any links to practical exercises for reveal this more clearly, I'd be much obliged.

Final boarding for my flight. Thanks so much, darks, and everyone. I'll get back on as soon as I can.

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=GregoryJ]
And I'm not contesting what you are saying, just trying to understand what you would like to hear from my side.[/quote]

?

You invest energy in trying to work out what someone wants to hear? Sounds like what I would say if this were just an intellectual exercise for me.

[quote author=GregoryJ]
I have a feeling (best I can do – i.e. my observation) that I am still expected to just accept the criticism I have been given. I do accept it for what I perceive it to be ( I will not insist that I know), but that does not mean that I agree with all put forth – and frankly I cannot see how I am expected to. I will however continue to give it a lot of thought.[/quote]

I don't think you're expected to accept anything until you can actually accept that there may actually be something to accept. IOW, what you can 'see' sometimes depends on how far you can back up when you're very close to something under discussion.

[quote author=GregoryJ]
I am aware of the probability that there is misunderstanding on my part and also on the part of others.[/quote]

Kewl, but one neat exercise for understanding projection is to imagine for a moment that there are no 'others'. Imagine for a moment that everything you are saying about others is actual evidence that it is you to whom it applies (in systems theory it's called the false system boundary problem). It really is a neat exercise. I need to do it more often, myself. :)

 

[Laura]

I also know it can. I would be willing to bet that almost everyone on this forum would agree that it is indeed a possibility. I agree, though I would like to also point out that no matter how much one understands it, without the effort to identify it in practice and pro-actively defuse it's influences, the net effect is the same though there is little or no understanding of it all.

If you have any links to practical exercises for reveal this more clearly, I'd be much obliged.

Just what you are doing here: accustoming yourself to discussing your own self, nature, etc, receiving feedback, recapitulating, until you are divested of all emotional attachment and self-importance. Of course, it is one thing to do it in writing when you can take time to cool down from shocks etc, or think about things, and another to be able to do it in real life. But being objective about the self, first of all, is essential and it CANNOT BE DONE ALONE. If you read the threads in the cognitive science forum you'll get the picture in more scientific terms and also a lot of pointers. The bottom line is: no one - no exceptions - can really see or know themselves without robust feedback from other sincere seekers of truth who care enough to offer that feedback as neutrally as possible.

 

[Gertrudes]

speaking one's mind precisely and affectively involves using no more malice and no less assertiveness than is needed.

Precisely. I was careless, hasty, and very rude. The post likely revealed more of myself then it did of you.

And I am glad to be getting to know you and look forward to working with you in the future.

Likewise.

It seems to me that certain members are considered something of an "authority" and their assertions should be heeded and not questioned too blatantly. Maybe I'm wrong about this. If that's the way it is, that's fine, I'll just have to adjust to this reckoning.

It seemed to me that maybe some people rise to a certain level in the forum and then become beyond question, but then fall into the same trap they endeavor to point out for others. I certainly was never accusing anyone of anything and I know I have been sincere in so far as I am able.

Well, consider the following, moderators and administrators are so for a reason, similarly, a Tai Chi master is, within the technique, a Tai Chi master for a reason. This doesn't mean that they are infallible, of course, simply that they (mods and admins) have been recognized as having a more consistently accurate perspective of things.
And they are questioned though, maybe even more then other members since they hold a much greater share of responsibility.

Speaking for myself, constant observation and interaction have made me trust mods and admins. Admittedly, I can be very slow in "getting it", but I have surprised myself, sometimes a year down the road slapping my forehead and saying "ah! So that's what he/she meant!"

Another side to this question is that if you are learning in a school, and considering the forum as a school, you'll find the Work much more effective if you are able to surrender what you have so far preserved as the most precious in you: your beliefs. That surrendering of beliefs can appear to outside eyes as subservience to certain members, whilst it is simply part of a learning process which also includes inner dissection. You are not surrendering your ability to think nor feel, in fact, you are trying to find it.
This is how I see it, others may have different angles/perspectives to add to this question.

Mod note: Double post deleted as requested

 

[Voyageur]

Fwiw Gregory, if one could add just a brief observation based on your thoughts expressed in this thread, especially thinking of the instances whereby you mention concerns numerous times about moderators, and as you have not participated here to a great extent, the following could or not be thought about. What is pointed out generally by moderators, what is being asked or questioned; although to the receiver this can seem like an attack, in actuality the exchanged words are always carefully thought about, even if they appear not – nothing is ever said lightly and certainly willfully hurtful. It is the “appearance” upon the receiver that self-identification usually enters (see here http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Identification ). It is how it is received, and the identifications in ones responses that say so much more concerning our mechanical natures. This does not mean that there are times when things can be misconstrued, yet this forum has been subject to everything imaginable and moderators such as anart have literally combed over word by word thousands if not hundreds of thousands of thoughts, statements, rebuttals, wishful thinking, disinformation’s and so on. What often results, even in our thinking sincerity, is the identity of chinks in our armors, and we do wear armor that we often refuse to see or just can’t see, and sometimes one really feels identified to having it pointed out, often constructing consciously or unconsciously all manner of measures to redirect.

As for the name title references, osit, and you did explain yourself as per the "tradition" of these matters, however am thinking like master, professor, rinpoche, sensei, economist, et al, these can be very abused prefixes denoting skill, knowledge and authority, and it is the latter that causes many ills as you can well imagine and see. A respected Rinpoche at a recent conference started going off (subtle references) about Muslims in front of the crowd that came to hear him speak - many were enthralled with his words. Here is a learned man, yet he seems blinded by identification and prejudice, and in a sense, this is dangerous. If he was a Master rather than a Rinpoche, it is the same result - mechanical authoritarian thinking, and humanity is best served without liberally using prefixes, imho. In our daily media, there is hardly a news event that does not feature a well prefixed authoritarian telling people how to think on a given matter. In this respect, the feedback to you may or may not have hinted at our use of titles, even if they seem rather innocuous, they do carry potentials for imparting wrong thinking to people looking up.

As an example; this was on SotT awhile back under their Quote of the Day:

Believe nothing
no matter where you
read it or who has said it,
not even if i have said it,
unless it agrees with
your own reason and
your own common sense.
-Buddha-

To me this lends credence to understanding the power of authority and what it can do and be used for if odd intent creeps in. Buddha here seems to understand this, knows his followers must use their own reason. Did the Rinpoche say this to the crowd while speaking of Muslims - "use your own reason" - indeed no. To many in the crowd, he is their spiritual authoritarian and that thought he let slip is what many may leave with as a truth.

Coming back to "moderators", this too on a forum is a necessary title (it just could not function otherwise), and without one reading extensively from their replies or from their own internal work, it would be naive to think of them as a hierarchy that forum members will not question, this is plain not true and they have often, if applicable, recapitulated upon a thread and stated their own misinterpretation, fwiw.

[quote author=Gertrudes]

Another side to this question is that if you are learning in a school, and considering the forum as a school, you'll find the Work much more effective if you are able to surrender what you have so far preserved as the most precious in you: your beliefs. That surrendering of beliefs can appear to outside eyes as subservience to certain members, whilst it is simply part of a learning process which also includes inner dissection. You are not surrendering your ability to think nor feel, in fact, you are trying to find it.

This is how I see it, others may have different angles/perspectives to add to this question.

[/quote]

Think Gertrudes has this bolded area true. And Laura exemplifies this below:

[quote author=Laura ]

...But being objective about the self, first of all, is essential and it CANNOT BE DONE ALONE....

[/quote]

There is not a day/hour/minute that goes by that this does not jolt me into remembering that being self-objective is impossible. For many here, if it is felt the same, it is curious thing knowing where we could be today if we had had an objective network/feedback loop while growing up. It seems to me that some societies did just that in history. Even the chief (prefix), if the right sort, would hear every word of people in the community.

Anyway, these things you generally know, yet thought to say them here based on what was being interpreted and said above. Hope you stick around Gregory. :)

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=voyageur]
There is not a day/hour/minute that goes by that this does not jolt me into remembering that being self-objective is impossible.[/quote]

I agree and used to think it was possible. Then it hit me: even when there is that which is objective right in front of me, I'm still perceiving it subjectively, meaning there is other stuff in the mix that may cloud or color it. Discernment is not as easy as I originally thought.

Thanks for pointing that out, voyageur!

 

[anart]

If you have any links to practical exercises for reveal this more clearly, I'd be much obliged.

Just what you are doing here: accustoming yourself to discussing your own self, nature, etc, receiving feedback, recapitulating, until you are divested of all emotional attachment and self-importance. Of course, it is one thing to do it in writing when you can take time to cool down from shocks etc, or think about things, and another to be able to do it in real life. But being objective about the self, first of all, is essential and it CANNOT BE DONE ALONE. If you read the threads in the cognitive science forum you'll get the picture in more scientific terms and also a lot of pointers. The bottom line is: no one - no exceptions - can really see or know themselves without robust feedback from other sincere seekers of truth who care enough to offer that feedback as neutrally as possible.

I was away from my computer all day yesterday, so I was unable to chime in on this discussion, but you've received some very valuable input from many people, Gregory. If you can take it in, it might actually forge something in you that you have yet to experience. Your responses in this thread have been based in your own self-importance, which is - at its base - illusion and nothing more. The truth of the matter is that there is a very real way to stop being a sheep who dreams that he is a magician and it has, first, to do with conquering ones self-importance because self-importance is where all the lies to the self are born. It really all comes down to what Laura has written above.

 

[Beau]

This is important in a discussion, no? I am not stating what I understand to impress anyone or rise in your esteem. And I'm not contesting what you are saying, just trying to understand what you would like to hear from my side.

It's not about understanding what others would like to hear. You're reacting to honest feedback like it's a fire and you just want to put it out. If you think of it like others can see you better than you can see yourself, you would be able to get past trying to figure out what you can say to placate others. We're not doing this to be placated, we're doing it to help YOU see yourself.

Perhaps I just need to get a better handle on how things transpire here in the forum. It seems to me that certain members are considered something of an "authority" and their assertions should be heeded and not questioned too blatantly. Maybe I'm wrong about this. If that's the way it is, that's fine, I'll just have to adjust to this reckoning.

If that was "the way it is", I would have left this forum years ago. This just reads like a deflection, you are trying to take the focus off of you and onto others. The reason you feel the need to question people here is because you do not like what you are being told. That does not make it wrong. In fact, if it bothers you so much as to say what you do above, then it probably has hit the nail on the head.

It seemed to me that maybe some people rise to a certain level in the forum and then become beyond question, but then fall into the same trap they endeavor to point out for others.

Deflection. The fact is that others can see you better than you can see yourself. Not understanding this concept leads to attempts to point out in others that which exists in you i.e. you are beyond question, and then when you do get questioned on your thinking, you just try to turn it around and point at everyone else and say "Ya'll are a bunch of fascists!".

I certainly was never accusing anyone of anything and I know I have been sincere in so far as I am able. The fact that my sincerity has been severely (subjective, I know) questioned brought up questions for me concerning A) the protocol here, and B) the level of perspicacity of some members – whether or not it it as refined as they tend to think or whether or not I am simply not privy to some manner of perceiving things via a forum... as I have indicated several times.

Of course. Instead of truly looking at yourself and questioning your thinking, you project it outwards onto this forum. That's your way of keeping things in order. It has happened so many times here that it's very obvious when it occurs. The program is the same no matter the person.

I am not attached to finding out the answers to these questions at this time and am aware that perhaps further Work and relationship/observation of this group will need to take place prior to arriving at clarity with regard to these questions. I hope this better addresses your statement, but I have a feeling (best I can do – i.e. my observation) that I am still expected to just accept the criticism I have been given. I do accept it for what I perceive it to be ( I will not insist that I know), but that does not mean that I agree with all put forth – and frankly I cannot see how I am expected to. I will however continue to give it a lot of thought.

No one expects you to agree with anything. But you do need to be sincere about Working on yourself, and that includes understanding that you cannot see yourself as others do, and that here we endeavor to help others by pointing out what we see in order to help that person grow. You seem to be fighting this, for whatever reason you are holding on very strongly to your idea of yourself and in doing so, making some very classical errors in the process. It's not anything new, and it's not the end of the world, but it does mean that you are caught rather powerfully in your subjective understanding of things and that you fight pretty strongly to not give up that understanding. Unfortunately that will hinder your growth greatly from a 4th Way perspective, but if you are sincere about growing and understanding yourself better, you can make that happen less and less over time, but it starts with being able to accept that you cannot think with the way you think. That's usually where the rubber hits the road for a lot of people, but if you can grasp that and be willing to take on feedback with rejecting it like you've done here, you can really grow the REAL part of you instead of the false one which is running things now.

As I have said, I don't think it is possible to determine one way or another another's level of awareness, least of all via a forum. It is you/my awareness, after all. The best we can do is point to it.

That's your predator, holding on as tight as possible to its grip on your mind.

My aim in presenting my understanding is moving forward, not circular. I guess that is what you mean by "circular self-referencing". If you care to present precise examples, I am open to exploring and/or contemplating them. I'm not sure about saying it's "quite clear" that I'm missing the point. I think it is only clear that I am not agreeing with it.

Actually, it appears your aim right now is to hold onto your subjective beliefs about yourself as tightly as possible and reject anything that contradicts it. Then you create a narrative that explains why you have done that. It's pretty simple stuff, but you really need to get up to speed on the cognitive science side of things or else you'll be stuck defending your subjective world forever.

It seems to me that I am held accountable (we all are) for every word and I am doing my best to be clear. Language is not a precise means of communication, especially the written word, but it is what we have. I am aware of the probability that there is misunderstanding on my part and also on the part of others.

You are quite clear, and actually language and writing IS very precise, it's just you don't see how clearly your writing is to us here, because you are not getting the expected feedback. Because your words are being held accountable and you are given feedback on those words, you are now creating the narrative that you are being misunderstood and that, as a whole, language is not good enough to describe yourself. But it is good enough, and it's doing exactly what it's supposed to.

If you have any links to practical exercises for reveal this more clearly, I'd be much obliged.

Read the cognitive science board here - https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/board,74.0.html - especially these threads: Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change, The Adaptive Unconscious, and Thinking, Fast And Slow.