Gregory James - Faux "Master"?

A

abeofarrell

Guest
Laura said:
Actually, there aren't many variables at all. Science, Gregory, science. Start catching up!

Strangers to Ourselves, by Dr Timothy Wilson.

You have been given a lot of amazing feedback, which I doubt you would be able to get from anywhere else. Most people won't advise a Master, and they won't be honest with a friend or colleague out of fear of losing a friend. That is why I value this place so highly, though at times it scares me so much to see the truth about myself I need to wear diapers while reading posts (sorry, sick joke).
 

Buddy

The Living Force
GregoryJ said:
Whether or not you will accept it, I have "fought so hard" not so much because I felt my self-worth being threatened (though I am not denying there is some truth to this, for which I am grateful) but because I would not think to accept (and invite further) assistance in my own Work from others (i.e. this forum) without testing their "moxie", temperance and prowess (by this I do not mean that everyone and everything cannot be my teacher, only that there's BS for the sake of BS and then there is wisdom). I'm sorry for this – I do not mean disrespect. In fact, I mean precisely the opposite and I have never taken a teacher without first testing him/her to be sure he/she can accomplish the task and not just waste my time. Although I have certainly come to odds with much of what Anart has stated (partly carrying over from – admittedly – a perceived disrespect in an earlier thread, as well as here regarding my path and my sincerity), I do see the value in it – I just wasn't certain of the aim. I am reminded of my training wherein I have invariably come to admire most those who have given me the most trouble – those whom I have fought the hardest and who have thereby reflected the most and helped make me of a finer quality.

This reminds me of when a child, caught in an elaborate lie with no way out, will say something like "I was just joking." It is blatantly obvious to anyone present that it wasn't a joke, it was a lie. But the child perceives the threat of being caught in a lie as being so bad that he or she will lie further in order to escape rather than face the music. I find it interesting here that we can see how child-like the predator can be in a person - self importance has us playing children's games, trying to reinvent reality rather than be exposed. I recognize it as something I've seen in myself. And the shock of it all is that it's obvious to everyone else 'in the room', whether it gets acknowledged or not.

...because it seems to have the hallmark flavor of a "ha ha only serious" (a mutation of HHOK, ‘Ha Ha Only Kidding’) considering GregoryJ's previous participation. GregoryJ has expressed an interest in discerning Predator mind in self and in others, so he is getting much material with which to Work, OSIT.
_http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/ha-ha-only-serious.html

But I could be off somewhere, of course.
 

Miss.K

Dagobah Resident
Buddy said:
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-

which I also think is true (as I think the "others can see you better than you can see yourself" is as well)
but they kinda contradict each other, and I get confused.
-I guess that on the path to knowledge nothing is as simple as one would like it to be, and perhaps it is the thing with "there is right and wrong, and the specific situation that determines which is which" (which I also think is true) but if one doesn't see one self clearly, that can also be twisted into "it's OK if I do it, and not OK if you do" which I believe is dangerous, and so I'm trying to figure out how one can know if one is doing that.
I mean it doesn't only have to do with knowledge or intelligence (if it is true that the Lizzies are about 98% more knowledgeable and intelligent than humans, and they still do it)
-does that make sense?
 

Buddy

The Living Force
[quote author=Miss.K]
...but they kinda contradict each other, and I get confused.[/quote]

I understand. In my view, that saying of Buddha has two interpretations. A superficial one that anyone can use as a way of avoiding automatic beliefs, and a deeper meaning which would seem to indicate that "your own reason and your own common sense" is already aligned with respect to objective reality and that one shouldn't accept anything that goes against it.

This deeper meaning would seem to be for someone who already knew that "others can see you better than you can see yourself", OSIT.
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
Miss.K said:
which I also think is true (as I think the "others can see you better than you can see yourself" is as well)
but they kinda contradict each other, and I get confused.

That's the whole point of developing discernment - that's your task here on earth as a human being, to learn to tell the true from the 'untrue'. There are many ways to tell - most if not all of them relating directly to experimentation and experience. By their fruits you shall know them.


mk said:
-I guess that on the path to knowledge nothing is as simple as one would like it to be, and perhaps it is the thing with "there is right and wrong, and the specific situation that determines which is which" (which I also think is true) but if one doesn't see one self clearly, that can also be twisted into "it's OK if I do it, and not OK if you do" which I believe is dangerous, and so I'm trying to figure out how one can know if one is doing that.

I think it comes down to results - question everything - use YOUR mind - learn about yourself - KNOW yourself. The trick is that to KNOW oneself, one must have help to learn how to See and, again, we're back to developing the discernment to be able to tell what is true and what is 'untrue' and where to get that help. I think that's why "the Way is so narrow". The track record of this network (this forum and its associated pages) is remarkable. The research, the data, the effort and sweat put into not only finding relevant information and figuring it out but also in disseminating it is astounding, but always and in everything it must come down to you and your own effort to figure things out and do research and corroborate data. We shine the light on the door, but you have to do the work necessary to benefit from it and through that develop discernment.

There is no easy way and there is no one to tell you what to do - I think that's the crux of the whole human experiment.
 

GregoryJ

Padawan Learner
Miss.K said:
GregoryJ said:
Heimdallr said:
...If you think of it like others can see you better than you can see yourself [...]

I'm still not quite available to agree with this statement, entirely.

I have a question, and my apologies if noice (hope it isn't).
What I'm thinking is that both statements above seem right to me. It is true that others can see one self better, but it is also at times untrue.
I mean many people "see" Laura as a crazy cultleader, and it would probably not be advisable for her to say "oh, I can't see myself clearly so they must be right"

So I'm thinking that whether or not "others can see you better than you can see yourself" depends who is doing the seeing, in which case it comes down to whether or not one trusts the ones doing the seeing, when things that oneself cannot see, is being seen.

Then even as a group, it can be possible to not see one self clearly, even with feedback, because one will choose to trust the feedback coming from the ones one trust, and one may be more inclined to trust the ones with a similar view as ones own.

So my question is: How does one know who to trust? Or how does one know, when to trust or not, as if one can't rely on what resonates with what oneself sees, as one cannot see oneself, but it is a fact that not all that all people see is true, how can one know if the ones doing the seeing are right or wrong?

This isn't noise at all; it is perfectly relevant and what I have been trying to understand about the group.

So it seems that I am NOT only to release the need to defend myself but I am meant to agree with everything being said – that is what will make me "good" and "right" in the eyes of the forum members. This is what is becoming reinforced for me here. I'm sure that if I'm wrong, or at least not precisely right by someone else's reckoning, I will be told. But being told doesn't make me wrong – which is the crux of what I mean about "testing" the group. The virtue of humility has been suggested for me several times, but I see it in certain members of the group infrequently and inconsistently. SOME have been delightful and humble and provided really special and helpful advice, others have just been impertinent, at times – and I fail to see how it is relevant to helping me know myself (except that it is a valuable exercise for me to stand up to it and/or accept it and not defend against it – which I have been TOLD is invalid).

I agree that I've gotten much valuable feedback from this thread, but how it is valuable to me may not have as much to do with what has been conveyed according to those who have conveyed it. It still seems that there are things being misunderstood from both sides (mine and the group's). You all share really similar beliefs, and mine are different enough from yours to be discounted in your eyes and called erroneous or circular reasoning. Some will surely retort that it is because I have engaged circular reasoning that I am fitted with that judgment, but in most every case I feel it is really more about semantics and a standard of belief. But as we all know from the state of the world, just because lots of people believe the same thing, doesn't mean everything they say is right at all times. There seems little room here for that recognition.

For example:

arnat] People made observations about your behavior - there was no ill-intent or malice[/quote] Now who's lying to themselves? [quote author=arnat] LOL - that is classic. First off said:
GregoryJ said:
Whether or not you will accept it, I have "fought so hard" not so much because I felt my self-worth being threatened (though I am not denying there is some truth to this, for which I am grateful) but because I would not think to accept (and invite further) assistance in my own Work from others (i.e. this forum) without testing their "moxie", temperance and prowess (by this I do not mean that everyone and everything cannot be my teacher, only that there's BS for the sake of BS and then there is wisdom). I'm sorry for this – I do not mean disrespect. In fact, I mean precisely the opposite and I have never taken a teacher without first testing him/her to be sure he/she can accomplish the task and not just waste my time. Although I have certainly come to odds with much of what Anart has stated (partly carrying over from – admittedly – a perceived disrespect in an earlier thread, as well as here regarding my path and my sincerity), I do see the value in it – I just wasn't certain of the aim. I am reminded of my training wherein I have invariably come to admire most those who have given me the most trouble – those whom I have fought the hardest and who have thereby reflected the most and helped make me of a finer quality.

Concerning the above; I think you might be misunderstanding the way this forum and how the 'Work' we do actually works. There really isn't any way to "test" this forum as you would test a teacher or whatever. Indeed, the idea that you would even be able to effectively 'test' a good teacher is a bit problematic. I mean, what would you be looking for? A teacher that makes you feel bad about yourself? Or one that makes you feel good about yourself? Do you see my point? If you know what you are looking for from a teacher you don't really need such a teacher. The success of this forum as a teacher is directly proportional to the extent to which you are willing and able to be honest with yourself and share your beliefs and ideas etc. with others, and, the extent to which you are willing and able to learn from that feedback and apply it to yourself and your life. Note, that in both cases, the first step, and much of the effort, comes from you.

I agree with you, Joe. I am not yet understanding how this forum works, that's why I'm testing it. And I see your point too about the problem of effectively testing a teacher. I hope I can clarify.

I'm not looking for something that makes me comfortable, as I have stated a couple times in this thread. Please don't dismiss the Work that I HAVE done, which can easily be inferred from your above comment (perhaps not your intention, but therein lies the issue I'm having with the forum – things are misinterpreted too easily and perhaps taken more seriously than is appropriate). In my training, I have been chewed up and spit out more times than I care to count. My training has been every bit as brutal and honest as you take your Work and the function of this forum to be. And that's not self-importance – just trying to illustrate why I'm not necessarily new to this sort of thing and that I am accustomed to making an effort.

How would I test the forum? By throwing myself upon it and seeing what comes back. That simple. And I can measure what comes back against previous realizations resultant from previous Work.

I HAVE tested this forum. For instance: the thread originally began with Lisa's question regarding something I said on FB. It quickly "evolved" into a criticism of the source – fair enough – but I observed this criticism to be not entirely correct and decided to clarify. My clarification was chomped on and the thread immediately changed from Lisa's question to a topic of my illusions and self-importance. Again, that's fine. But as I perceived some errors in judgement and still some confusion regarding my efforts here (which is not to say that I am beyond critique), I decided to really let loose what was on my mind. This has been called a "reaction". I can see how it could be perceived that way, but I assure all here that BEFORE I wrote one single word past the point of Anart's second reply to me directly beginning with "Gregory, your first response was actually honest...", I decided that this is the point of no return with the forum; I am either going to tip toe in and take it nice and easy (if there is such a thing here) OR crash in with the full intention of seeing how much the group will "tolerate", not sure if I'd get bounced out of here and alienated from a circle of friends I have come to enjoy very much over the past year (mostly via FB and my interactions with, and my work with SOTT). I assumed that wasn't the case, all the same I thought to myself "now is the time to see for myself what this group is really all about". So I came at it full on, being a little bit brazen in my "reactions" (which were actually RESPONSES –and still are), especially toward Arnat, some of whose comments I admittedly take issue with – though am responding to to see what it is all about. I want to see if some people can take it as well as they can dish it out, and I wanted to see if people would get nasty with me if I "overstepped my bounds", whatever that might mean here – again, I was testing. This shouldn't be difficult to understand. The fact that some insist I wasn't testing and ONLY reacting (certainly there was SOME reacting) shows me a bit about the group AND about the functionality of the forum – such is the purpose of a test.
___

In this thread, I have been treated, by some, like a fool, a liar (to myself) and a little baby (as it concerns the Work). That's fine; and I'm sure this will be registered as a "reaction" and a "narrative created" to defend my "self-importance", but that doesn't make it true. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater on what has been put forth – and I am taking it in (appreciatively; not with a grain of salt) – but I'm also not about to abandon very lucid realizations validating what I have accomplished just because what is said here seemingly seeks to invalidate that.

I KNOW that I am aware of certain things which comprise validation of my Work – subtle things that no one else can understand except within themselves, experientially via a certain type of Work – things that cannot be adequately expressed or brought into a forum. And what I mean by "subtle" is not that it is barely noticeable, but rather that it is not noticeable to others unless they have the experiences for themselves. This is also not to say that it is only subjective. The experiences that I have had are utterly profound, beyond describability except as an essence (because it does not conform to the standards of this place). These experiences occur often and are repeatedly very distinctly similar or the same, validating to me their objectivity – especially as discussing the experiences with others (in my path and different paths) reveal that they too experience the SAME things – like the way that you and I can both enjoy ice cream (the enjoyment is subjective, but quality of our respective experiences and the fact that we have experienced it is an objective phenomenon).

What I am saying is that I have "seen" (not everything, but enough to validate what I Know), and you can tell me that I am delusional (or "a man living an illusion") until you're blue in the face, it is never going to change the FACT that I have seen what I have seen, experienced what I have experienced and continue to experience, Knowing what I KNOW. I'll give an analogy – because there appears to be a standard put forth in this group which reflects a lack of awareness of these types of validations:

>>A dog is given a pill which he chooses to eat because he sees it as food being given by his trusted owner. The dog goes to sleep and when he wakes up he is in a completely different place. The dog didn't realize that the owner had (while the dog was "sleeping") put him on a plane and taken him from Chicago to Bangkok, where everything is (for a dog) vastly different – people and things sound different, look different, smell different, all the contexts have changed; everything is new and unique. A few days later the dog is given another pill and is returned to Chicago. He is very excited to tell his doggy friends all about the experience he has had, but of course, they don't believe him. To the doggy friends, this sort of thing is unheard of; it just "isn't possible", simply because they have not experienced it. Our traveling dog is ridiculed and mocked till the end of his days because the other dogs say he's delusional or that he is not living life in the real world. But our dog can't accept that; he has seen, and so he Knows differently.<<

Now, I know I'm sticking my neck out here and admit that I didn't want to have to discuss any of this because I am pretty sure it will be mocked and ridiculed or labeled as self-importance, but in an effort to be open and honest and explain why I am the way I am, and say what I say, I guess I have to – we are being honest here, right? That's the point, right?

You all do one type of Work for which I have great admiration, but it seems to me that you might be missing the fact that another type of Work exists – or doubting the validity of such Work (which is perfectly reasonable based on what we may ordinarily see of the world of so called "meditation" and "ChiGong" looky-likey "work"). I hazard to think that you or someone you know has been blessed to be trained in the presence of a master who is, because of his effort and the fortunate circumstances of his life, totally transformed from a fragmented human being into that which the ancient legends describe as a sage capable of many uncommon abilities – he who has achieved and is continuing to carry the Great Work. And I hazard to think that you have engaged such a practice and been guided to similar realizations via this method (though I am not portending that I have yet achieved what my master has). I'm willing to bet that you likely do not even know anyone who has engaged in this practice of meditation and deep energetic Work for several hours each day for 15 years, as I have – achieving within it spans of time and space which can only be defined as hyperdimensional and utterly vast in scope and quality, and accessing modes of perception and awareness of beings which we may call "alien" or "angel", etc. My experiential validation herein is precisely why I am so drawn to Laura's work and Know that the theories she puts forth are true and viable. I'm not just spinning my wheels here. And before anyone gets up in arms about my "hero worship" of my teacher, please remember that you do not know him, nor me, nor what I have experienced.

And I am only telling you this because the validity of my efforts and practice seem to be in question, and the use of a title and my "defense" of it seems to be considered "nothing more" than self importance. You can say that what I have just stated is a defense mechanism if you want, or self-importance, but if you check with others, like Spiral Out, who have spoken to me many times, you'll find that I never discuss these matters because I do not wish to be haughty, and I am well aware that an achievement of these things is not the norm. The internet and new age scene is full of stories of psychics, multidimensional awareness, transmutation, channeling, astral projection, etc., and most of it is complete nonsense. So I can understand why anyone with discernment would immediately be wary of anyone making such claims. Though I also know that anyone with true discernment will not dismiss what they do not actually know for sure.

I'd say that the fact that I am still here illustrates that I am interested in hearing what you all have to say and exploring what it is you do (I genuinely am), and that I do not take the grilling personally or especially feel offense which brings me to staunch reaction. And I assure you I have much better things to do with my time than argue for the sake of arguing or defending myself against assertions from people I don't really know. I am here because I have gotten to know Laura and Spiral Out a bit (both from their work and numerous correspondences) and I feel I have finally found some people who posses something special and legitimate (outside of my practice), and I place so much confidence in that observation that I figure that this forum must also be very special and legitimate. It is my continuing observation that A) some of what has been observed about me is true and valuable feedback for which I am grateful, differing mainly in approach to the Work, and B) some of it is way off and only points to a brash self-importance and error in discernment (assumption) on the part of those putting it forth, and that this is bolstered by the comfort of friends within the group sharing very similar beliefs.

I wonder how much MY feedback is being valued? Not much I gather. It is easier to dismiss it on the grounds that it doesn't conform your beliefs held and shared by the group. And therein lies the crux of the matter: if I agree, I get praise, if I disagree I am committing "acts of self-importance", "circular reasoning", "hair splitting", "nit-picking" or the provision of "word salad" – all of which being very amusing and very convenient (and not especially meaningful) phrases to denote my "missing of the point". Do you really think I am so insipid and inept? Really? At one point in this thread I felt like we were coming down to the brass tacks, but from that point I am gaining an increasing sense that what really matters to some of the members isn't helping me understand myself (though that is the guise), but inciting me to agree with a group-held belief which though partially valid may also be partially inapplicable to the actual claims being presented. And I don't see that there is any room for expansion on the belief in light of new or contrary information – that the group-held belief is supremely right and that's that and only the group can find new information but that it cannot enter from anywhere else because the group is already informed of the best truth out there. Well, sorry, that's bullocks! Period. And you can argue that it's science and thus ubiquitously irrefutable but I still have yet to come across ANY "science" which points to a solid explanation for much of what I KNOW and have experienced and will experience today and tomorrow and the days after that.

What does science say about channeling ourselves in the future? I've read much of Arkadiusz's and Laura's very compelling points on the matter and I am moved and inspired by both the science and the personal insight behind it, but I don't think all scientists, physicists, etc., agree with it – which is not to say it is wrong or invalid, only that there is much left to discover and we can't throw out "outside" observations on the grounds that they are subjective and/or don't conform to a standard of belief – insisting that said belief is the final "truth". Sure it is easy to argue that many people working toward something together and with a view on objectivity are more likely to produce objective conclusions, but that doesn't mean all individuals in that group are going to arrive at a total understanding of everything at the same time and leave behind all doubt of what is viable and what isn't in every respect for all persons in this vastly heterogeneous universe! What I am saying here is simply that I feel this group (as a group) isn't very open to engaging someone who has achieved something slightly different and via a different path.

Our ultimate aim is of course the same, but our respective paths have been different. That said, I trust that I have been guided here for a reason.

So, yes, I present myself as a "master" (professionally) for the sake of conveying that I understand something uncommon and truly valuable, that I have insight into the nature of reality that I KNOW to be both a higher Reality, and that I understand and am capable of teaching a highly detailed practice which is a viable means to achieve this. I DO Know myself, though perhaps not yet through and through – but neither do ANY of you, and if you say that you do I will Know that you have fallen for the trap of all traps. And what I Know most of myself is that whatever I Know of myself isn't really "me", and I take that to heart on my path every minute of everyday, in so far as I am able. Do you see that as a humble statement or an arrogant one? What does the answer say about YOU? What does it say about me? And who the hell am I?

I Know myself, which is to say certainly that I know that I am weird and difficult to relate to and understand – usually unusual and normally abnormal. Though I also KNOW that I am not this lost little man some of you are painting me to be. This is YOUR understanding. Are all of you projecting? That was Spiral Out's question to me. My answer: no, I don't think all of you are, but I do see that some of you are missing the mark on your assertions and blindly insisting that I am who YOU say I am, and I am at least as apt to recognize this as an over-estimation of yourselves as I am to see your points as valid from a certain perspective.

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-

Indeed.
___

I find Jeanne de Salzmann's initial appraisal of Gurdjieff very interesting and humble:

With some people who did not know him, he played the role of a spiritual master, behaving as they expected, and then let them go away. But if he saw they were looking for something higher, he might take you to dinner and speak about interesting subjects, amuse them, make them laugh. This behavior seemed to be more spontaneous, more "free". But was it really freer, or did it only seems so because he intended to appear like that? You might think you knew Gurdjieff very well, but then he would act quite differently and you would see that you did not really know him.

[quote author=anart]
I was unaware that he even allows anyone else to call him 'master' - that's enough to send a chill down my spine and most unfortunate for all involved.

[quote author=de Salzmann]
Without Gurdjieff, the master, we do not have the possibility of working in those special conditions. Yet his teaching remains – to develop our inner being.[/quote][/quote]

So too the the title of "Master" exist in our system, so to facilitate certain purposes, among them to remind the student that this is a teaching which comes from the realizations and objective understandings of a lineage of masters, an accumulation of Knowledge, and that this is what the master is providing, NOT himself.
____

[quote author=Heimdallr]
The thing is, it's not anyone else's job or position to confirm, or deny, that your intentions are well placed. That's really up to you. Whatever has happened outside of this forum is really very different than what happens on this forum. The point is, it's YOUR words that matter, and it's your words that will be used as the factor in determining your sincerity here. No one else can, or should, do that. The fact that you ask Spiral Out to add his "insights and clarifications", basically asking him to defend you, does not bode well. The fact that you let people call you master, that it doesn't bother you, is a sign that you identify with it. The nitpicking about it (and elsewhere in the same post about other issues you have) is pretty much proof of that. [/quote]

I knew very well that Spiral Out was NOT going to defend me. I have had enough interaction with him to know that he is as stubborn as I am and that he takes issue with my use of the prefix "Master". I also know that he understands my perspective though doesn't especially agree with it. You made an assumption, Heimdallr, which is fine – it happens to ALL of us – but I hope you take note it, if only to illustrate that not everything you guys think you see about my words – which are what matter here – is correct. Maybe some of what others see is more accurate than what one can see of himself, but surely it depends on whether or not the observer can see himself with a measure of perspicacity – which includes the possibly of being incorrect.

I invited Spiral Out to elucidate because I felt that we have already covered much on the topic, that's it. I was well aware that it would be a grilling but I also felt that it would bring further clarification to what I was stating on the topic – if only to show that I hadn't just suddenly invented it as a defense mechanism (though I am perfectly available to recognize that I DO have defense mechanism). I feel that he has supplied what I asked, and I am grateful for his input, even though some of it was more frank and outspoken – according to his perspective – than I had expected. Spiral Out has proven to be one of the most valued and kindred associations I have ever had, and I think that says something about not only setting aside differences but also the validity of our respective methods of Work.

BTW, I think I see why many of you use cute nicknames, like "Spiral Out", here instead of your real names – because it makes it easier for you to (unconsciously) digest some of the brutality that occurs here (which is not to say said "brutality" doesn't serve a valid function). That and it won't appear so evident to search engines. ;) I could see how I may prefer this conversation remain nonpublic as it concerns the ideas put forth about me and the very personal nature of the topic matter – less discerning persons are sure to take issue which could generate problems. Perhaps a moderator would consider editing the reference to my full name for this reason? Its fine if not, I am not ashamed of anything here, I just don't want the headache of having to explain it to others – though I suspect a couple of you might rather relish the thought.

[quote author=Heimdallr]Whatever has happened outside of this forum is really very different than what happens on this forum. The point is, it's YOUR words that matter, and it's your words that will be used as the factor in determining your sincerity here.[/quote]

You bet its different! And I have been direct with my use of words here, even to the point of stating things which are uncomfortable for me to state, which I think should be recognized as a testament to my sincerity, though it seems to have had the opposite effect ...curious that. However, the fact that it is ONLY my words which are the determining factor remains unfortunate, IMHO.
____

BTW, I don't know what "OSIT" means, so if you guys want to keep using that acronym, I'd like it if you could tell me what it signifies.
____

Now, I am going to read all the links you have all provided. I hope you give me the time to do so. As of tomorrow I am taking care of my two-year-old son by myself for several days, so my time will be very limited, both to study and to reply to you here. I hope I have made myself clear that while I value what has been stated, I do not and most probably am not going to totally agree with it – with respect.
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
gj said:
First of all, there is contempt in this statement, Anart!

No, Gregory, there isn't - not at all - not in any way. Are you not able to laugh at yourself at all? You take yourself SO seriously. Our programs really are quite funny if seen in the right light. Just because you are feeling contempt for me and my input does not mean that I feel contempt - or have ever even approached feeling contempt - for you, in any way.

You really aren't seeing reality as it is.
 

Miss.K

Dagobah Resident
GregoryJ said:
BTW, I don't know what "OSIT" means, so if you guys want to keep using that acronym, I'd like it if you could tell me what it signifies.

It is short for "Or so I think"
 

GregoryJ

Padawan Learner
Thanks Mss.K

anart said:
gj said:
First of all, there is contempt in this statement, Anart!

No, Gregory, there isn't - not at all - not in any way. Are you not able to laugh at yourself at all? You take yourself SO seriously. Our programs really are quite funny if seen in the right light. Just because you are feeling contempt for me and my input does not mean that I feel contempt - or have ever even approached feeling contempt - for you, in any way.

You really aren't seeing reality as it is.

Denial. Defense mechanism. You really aren't seeing reality as it is. ;)

You see, that's my point here: not only can I say the same darn thing to you, but how am I supposed to think differently about it – given the context and the limitations of the lack of face-to-face? I could just ignore all your feedback, which is what you are doing, but according to you, that is incorrect and oversimplifying the objective. AND btw, I assure you I'm laughing my butt off at this whole thread and am thoroughly amused. I'm taking it seriously as well, but believe me, good humor is abound.

So go ahead, explain it to me. You know you want to. Or am I too deluded to see your point? *humor*
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
GregoryJ said:
Miss.K said:
I have a question, and my apologies if noice (hope it isn't).
What I'm thinking is that both statements above seem right to me. It is true that others can see one self better, but it is also at times untrue.
I mean many people "see" Laura as a crazy cultleader, and it would probably not be advisable for her to say "oh, I can't see myself clearly so they must be right"

This isn't noise at all; it is perfectly relevant and what I have been trying to understand about the group.

Actually, it isn't that relevant to the discussion at hand. Miss.K's observations, while applicable to certain situations, don't apply to this one. The people calling Laura a cult-leader are either lying (the vast majority), or just plain wrong. With a little research, it's easy to clear up claims like that. When it comes to receiving feedback, however, Laura, like all the admins and mods here, are open to sincere feedback, especially that given by people with a good track record for such things. At this point, seeing certain programs and self-lies in people's posts is about as simple as a trained mathematician spotting basic errors in a student's work for many of the members of this forum. Of course, it is each student's choice to look at their work and accept the idea that they may be wrong. Or to reject that feedback. Doesn't change the objectivity of the feedback, though.

So it seems that I am NOT only to release the need to defend myself but I am meant to agree with everything being said – that is what will make me "good" and "right" in the eyes of the forum members.

Nope. Just to show a willingness to see yourself and the effect you have on those around you. It's very basic stuff, described at length in the material suggested to you (like Strangers to Ourselves).

SOME have been delightful and humble and provided really special and helpful advice, others have just been impertinent, at times – and I fail to see how it is relevant to helping me know myself (except that it is a valuable exercise for me to stand up to it and/or accept it and not defend against it – which I have been TOLD is invalid).

impertinent: not showing proper respect; rude. In other words, self-importance. In other words, projection. More often than not, when someone seems 'impertinent', it's because they've stepped on your corns, as Gurdjieff put it.

That's why you think it's "hilarious" and insist that it's "blatantly obvious" – it isn't "blatantly" obvious, even if it is remotely obvious, in fact it is only how YOU see it.

It's pretty obvious to me, too. And not because I'm a 'pal' of anart.

If anything should be "blatantly obvious" it is that your aim is NOT entirely pure – it is not entirely an aim to help me, but also to ridicule me, and I think you like it. Predator mind, IMHO. Of course, A) I do not know you, and B) you surely don't place ANY weight at all on I what I say anyway, except that it is "untrue", "unappreciative" "self-importance" and "nonsense", of course. Several of the members in the very thread have attested that you are a good bit more mean than you need to be. You might want to have a look at that! Thing is, as I have been alluding to this whole time, it seems that you are beyond accepting criticism here in this group because you are a certain authority. Maybe you've paid your dues and have earned it, maybe people just don't want to be in your overbearing crosshairs, but it is my humble opinion that you could lighten up a bit and be more affective in your effort to assist others.

Truth hurts. If you want buffers, this isn't the place. Gurdjieff had a lot to say about the disease of 'self-calming'.

I could go on, picking apart every detail of all you have said (if you "like" and as you have done "for me"), but I hardly think it would be a good use of time, as it appears more that your motive is to show me and everyone else that I am ridiculous and have no place here.

It may be true that you have no place here. It may not be. That's really up to you. But if you think you have a place here AS YOU ARE, and defending yourself as you are, you're making it fairly clear what the answer is. This is a place for people willing to see themselves, not those who shore up their false personalities.

It has been pointed out by Abe that Gurdjieff was hard on his students too, and suggested that perhaps you are emulating that value. I understand the value of teaching this way, not only because I have been guided via much antagonism but also trained to implement it. It is certainly a viable tool to get people to see what they are missing, if used well. But I also know that taking the time to recognize what each student needs is vital, and that all cannot be guided the same, nor does each circumstance require holding ones face to the grindstone – so to speak.

Sometimes when the rock is especially stubborn, a heavy blow is needed to crack it. Sometimes, even that is not enough.

It is my continuing observation that A) some of what has been observed about me is true and valuable feedback for which I am grateful, differing mainly in approach to the Work, and B) some of it is way off and only points to a brash self-importance and error in discernment (assumption) on the part of those putting it forth, and that this is bolstered by the comfort of friends within the group sharing very similar beliefs.

You're missing the point to be taken from Strangers to Ourselves: you won't be able to tell the difference between A and B, because you can't truly see yourself and the effect you have on others. That requires a mirror. If you had mastery of yourself, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Miss.K said:
GregoryJ said:
Heimdallr said:
...If you think of it like others can see you better than you can see yourself [...]

I'm still not quite available to agree with this statement, entirely.

I have a question, and my apologies if noice (hope it isn't).
What I'm thinking is that both statements above seem right to me. It is true that others can see one self better, but it is also at times untrue.
I mean many people "see" Laura as a crazy cultleader, and it would probably not be advisable for her to say "oh, I can't see myself clearly so they must be right"

I think there's a big difference there and you are way out of context.

For one thing, the Vinnie gang only started the "cult" rant after he was tossed out for lying and manipulating. That is, blatant lying and manipulating. It wasn't even a question of he said/she said. Have you read the articles that have been written about all of that? I doubt that you would even bring it up as a comparison if you had.

Miss.K said:
So I'm thinking that whether or not "others can see you better than you can see yourself" depends who is doing the seeing, in which case it comes down to whether or not one trusts the ones doing the seeing, when things that oneself cannot see, is being seen.

Since you started with a totally non-applicable premise, that doesn't logically follow.

According to the scientific studies, it works even among very small children in kindergarten. They were asked to make assessments of their classmates, the data was collected, and after years passed, it was found that the assessments made by the classmates about the future of a given individual were a way high percentage more accurate than the assessment made by the individual. In some experiments, this was done between complete strangers who only had a brief engagement with someone and were then asked to assess them. Time and again, strangers are better able to evaluate and predict things about a person than that person themselves, and more importantly, better able to do it than someone who is emotionally involved.

That's where you made the error bringing in Vinnie: he is totally and completely invested in his lies because he has to lie about me to protect his lies about himself.

The same can be true about a person who loves someone and simply cannot see that person because they are blinded by emotion.

In the same way, our own emotions blind us to being able to see ourselves.

Miss.K said:
Then even as a group, it can be possible to not see one self clearly, even with feedback, because one will choose to trust the feedback coming from the ones one trust, and one may be more inclined to trust the ones with a similar view as ones own.

Apples and oranges. It's actually better if it is strangers or, at the very least, NOT someone with an emotional investment.

Miss.K said:
So my question is: How does one know who to trust? Or how does one know, when to trust or not, as if one can't rely on what resonates with what oneself sees, as one cannot see oneself, but it is a fact that not all that all people see is true, how can one know if the ones doing the seeing are right or wrong?

Getting feedback about oneself isn't really an issue of trust. In fact, as already noted, it's better if it is NOT someone you know well enough to have an emotional tie.

Having said that, IF a group is engaged in working on becoming objective, it CAN work even if there are emotional connections between them but only if there are enough involved to have a 360 view. For example, say I want a good feedback about something I think or feel from my five children. So I sit down with them and say "lemme have it!" Each one of them will have a particular angle about the issue that will not be the same as the angle of the other. Of course, after I finish gathering their assessment, I will probably get assessments from several other people and have been known to ask people who are not in any way involved in a situation about a "hypothetical case" where I describe myself as ruthlessly as possible, though only as someone else, in order to get unbiased feedback.

I will add here, also, if you have read some of the discussions about it here on the forum, you will know that the lies that people like Bridges tell CAN anchor in your mind and I swear, there have been times when, if I had not known for an absolute fact that it was lies, it would have convinced me that I was living a double life unknown to myself, like multiple personality or something!
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
GregoryJ said:
Thanks Mss.K

anart said:
gj said:
First of all, there is contempt in this statement, Anart!

No, Gregory, there isn't - not at all - not in any way. Are you not able to laugh at yourself at all? You take yourself SO seriously. Our programs really are quite funny if seen in the right light. Just because you are feeling contempt for me and my input does not mean that I feel contempt - or have ever even approached feeling contempt - for you, in any way.

You really aren't seeing reality as it is.

Denial. Defense mechanism. You really aren't seeing reality as it is. ;)

You see, that's my point here: not only can I say the same darn thing to you, but how am I supposed to think differently about it – given the context and the limitations of the lack of face-to-face? I could just ignore all your feedback, which is what you are doing, but according to you, that is incorrect and oversimplifying the objective. AND btw, I assure you I'm laughing my butt off at this whole thread and am thoroughly amused. I'm taking it seriously as well, but believe me, good humor is abound.

So go ahead, explain it to me. You know you want to. Or am I too deluded to see your point? *humor*

Gregory, at this point you're acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum. It's embarrassing to watch. Let me try to explain this one more time, very simply, to see if it makes a difference. No one feels contempt for you, least of all me. Your self-importance has been scratched, revealing a man with barely contained anger and the self-importance born of a deep, deep sleep in which you are king of all you survey. Unfortunately, the reality is that you are not king of all you survey - you are a slave to your programs and your illusions and you are not at all in control of yourself, else your responses would have been very different.

The proof, as always, is in the pudding and if your current state of being is reflective of your path (which it necessarily must be) then it certainly doesn't speak very well of your path.

Now, you are either interested in learning, or you are not. Either is objectively fine, since the All blinks neither at the light nor the dark, as they say, but this forum serves a very particular purpose and if you are not interested in learning, then there is really no reason to continue to torture you with facts when you prefer illusion. As Gurdjieff says,

g said:
But many people in such circumstances show a side of
their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary
means for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to
you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?

You, Gregory, become very angry and indignant when not shown the "respect" you think you deserve - the "respect" that your false personality demands. This speaks volumes about you and your level of Being. If you would like to work on that, we are more than willing to help, but if you would not, then please try to grasp the very basic idea that just because you don't understand something does not make it untrue.
 

GregoryJ

Padawan Learner
Your right, Anart. This is very funny.

I'll do my best to learn, especially from you. I promise. (not sarcasm)

Thank you.
 

GregoryJ

Padawan Learner
For the record...

I do not think this is a cult or that Laura would ever have anything to do with anything like that. I think that the cult accusations are completely ridiculous lies.

Where I used Mss.K's comment to make my point, I would have preferred these references weren't in it. It was the remainder of the content that was relevant, not the example she gave.
 
Top Bottom