[...]
At this point, Mouravieff talks about two ways to develop discernment.
-The negative method, or method of exclusion, is recommended to man 3, that is, the intellectual type;
-The positive method, or method of integration, is recommended to man 2, the emotional type.
One question that might be asked is: how can you tell the difference between someone who has the center of gravity in the intellect, or one who has the center of gravity in the emotional? I think that the key is above, that for the person with the intellect as center of gravity, a "critical analysis" is the general method of dealing with life, and there is very little "imaginative" ideation about things, even very anomalous things. It is very hard for such a person to "believe" anything at all. Even if they create theories about things, they always seem to be still somewhat "open" to the next bit of data.
The individual with the emotional center dominant may
seem to do a lot of "critical analysis," but they do it with a "terminus a quo" - or a starting point of belief. They are not quite able to divest themselves of a starting belief to which they cling no matter what. This can create special problems.]
Looking at the first way, the way reccommended to a person who is more "intellectual," and has pretty much a sleeping emotional center, Mouravieff mentions that the individual with the anaesthetized emotional center will NOT see the light except at the peak of his efforts. He describes the problem in this way:
In principle, man 3 is endowed with a tendency not to believe. He is of a rather sceptical nature: he often and easily progresses to a critical analysis of the facts and problems that face him. The centre of gravity of his mental life is in intellectual activity.
The negative method takes these characteristics into account.
In observing the movements of the inner life, it undertakes a critical analysis of the most scrupulous and impartial type possible. It observes the comings and goings of the little 'I's or groups of little 'I's and, recognizing them as being Non-I's, makes an effort not to be identified with them.
Little by little, he thus discards that which does not indicate a real and permanent tendency in the currents of his mental life. When such constatations are repeated in a controlled way, over and over again, the observer will perceive that certain elements are permanent, and consequently cannot be subjected to the principle of exclusion with true objectivity: he will then find himself not far from the threshold of the real 'I'.
We can see that such a method asks neither for an ideal nor for faith. It nevertheless has its danger: it requires total impartiality in the observations and conclusions to be drawn from it.
This is where the input of a sincere group is INVALUABLE and even CRUCIAL. Because of the problem of "sleeping emotional centers" having their energy usurped by the intellect, it is almost impossible to be impartial without the mirror of the group.
If such impartiality is not observed from the start, the man risks falling deeper into Illusion.
His situation will then be worse than it was before.
As a result of these exercises, a certain modification is produced in the structure of his Personality, so that the ties between the centres, of which we have spoken in chapter VII, atrophy and eventually fall. If, at that moment, the magnetic centre is not strong enough to establish its authority directly over the centres, the man will become amoral, and dangerous to himself, as well as to others.
Now, let's look at the second way, the way of the individual whose center of gravity emotional. Mouravieff notes at the beginning that the person who follows this method will be encouraged by sparks from the consciousness of the real' I' which will accompany him all along the path.
The second method is positive. It can only apply to man 2, the centre of gravity of whose mental life is found in the heart. This man may have an ideal and try to reach it. For this he will attempt to reassemble those elements of his Personality where the seeds of his ideal are scattered. This method is the reverse of the preceding since it tends not to the exclusion of unstable elements but to a synthesis, an affirmation. If such a man is called hot, it is because he has given free rein to his positive emotions: exactly the opposite of the cold method of critical analysis and exclusion.
Those of you familiar with alchemical terminology might note that this could very well be the "wet way vs the dry way." The "wet way" would be the cold method of critical analysis, the "digestion" and "putrefaction" and the "dry way" would be the method of reassembling via heat and calcination. The dry way is said to be "faster," but less certain and Mouravieff notes this also:
This is not without danger, but the danger is of a different nature. It comes from an initial error in the choice of an ideal, or rather from the attitude when the choice is made. The fact that this ideal has been approved by the master changes nothing. It is a question of lack of sincerity towards oneself. The profound divergence between admitted and unadmitted aims can cause an interior rupture which, when strongly emphasized, can go so far that it provokes division in the Personality.
In other words, the terminus a quo amounts to lying to the self and what we have already discussed above: the Integral lie. This is the problem of someone trying to work alone, through pride or lack of self-esteem, or having so much self-importance that they cannot open up and share the mental processes they are going through for feedback. Again the work of a group is CRUCIAL. That's one of the reasons that the work of QFG requires the giving up of all "sacred cows." And we have set the example by giving up any "belief" that the C's are anything other than an interesting phenomenon that must be researched and analyzed before anything is considered even possible, much less probable.
A rapid analysis of these two methods of work reveals the role of impartiality - that form of objectivity of which man is capable - and later of sincerity.
Not to make conscious use of these two qualities, especially towards ourselves, is the source of many errors in our lives which we will not know how to mend later on.
There is within us a dominant aptitude either for impartial judgement or for sincerity.
Here Mouravieff has suggested that impartiality might belong to the intellectual type, and sincerity toward the goal - even if unaware of lying to the self - belongs to the emotional type. You can be sincere as all get out and still go down in flames. Old saying comes in here: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
This aptitude corresponds to our type, and determines in principle what method we should choose to follow.
We must not forget, however, that our natures are mixtures as much from the fact of our birth as from our education and upbringing. This means that, while applying the method which best suits our dominant aptitude, we must not lose sight of the other method; both have their roles to play in our efforts towards evolution, but in different proportions for different people.
Exactly so. It is not so simple, and in some cases, cold critical analysis is important, and in other cases, keeping the devotion to the goal in mind is most important.
But in either case, objectivity is the key.
The activity of QFS, the working group, is pretty much as described above, with a kick. This process is familiar to its members and quite a number of them have been "in the crucible." As many more have felt the heat and run screaming in terror...
But now, let's go back to something from the beginning of this post.
The problem of achieving objectivity - which is CRUCIAL - is that
the energy of the negative emotions are utilized to protect the self against TRUTH. Note Mouravieff's comment about "negative emotions, for which the keyboard is very large, ranging from melancholy to hate."
Those whose center of gravity is the emotional center, and that emotional center is very poorly developed, are generally seeking only love and acceptance. Unfortunately, they identify emotionally with their mechanical programs so deeply that it is almost impossible to tease them apart. They can even be quite intellectual. The key to this kind of intellectualism is that it is always obscure and convoluted and very poorly communicated. The word "density" is very low. Lots of words, little meaning. All of the words that such a person speaks are designed to hide the real self and can even serve to hide the self from the self since this is the kind of dialogue that goes on in their head. It exemplifies the varied "keyboard" of emotional "buttons."
A person whose emotional center is so buried and twisted is living in terror as I noted above in the discussion of the "right man." Remember that such a person MUST be right at all costs because, deep inside, they are struggling with horror at their own helplessness. Their rightness is a dam that holds back their worst fears: that they are lost and alone and that there really is no god because how could there be a god who loves them if they have to suffer so much? Their inability to feel truly loved and accepted deep within is, in effect, like being stranded in a nightmare from which they cannot wake up.
This helplessness, this fear of being alone, is very possibly based on fear of failure. Such a person is terrified of not being "good enough" to love.
As a consequence, such an individual may work very hard to succeed at something - or several things - as compensation. They work very hard to know a lot about a number of things, generally material things so that they can give evidence of their competence in a material way to the outside world.
When you listen to such a person talk, they nearly always come across as knowing lots of things and will incessantly talk AT another person, divulging all of the things they know about any given subject, their experiences, and so on and so forth. There's that "word density" problem again. Lots of talk, little substance.
Such an individual finds it almost impossible to admit that they are ever mistaken about anything, and even if of a very gentle disposition, can give the impression of a repellant self-righteousness. They are hypersensitive to any kind of criticism at all, and quite often, interpret simple interest in their activities as "critical."
What then happens is that such a person - feeling that they must compensate for some criticism with "rightness," will utilize the emotional energy to create conditions where they can prove that they are not only good enough, but better than others. The "dreaming" energy of the emotional center combined with a clever intellect, can produce all kinds of strange experiences that border on literal schizophrenia.
This is one of the reasons that QFG does not have much tolerance for imaginative weirdness and "seeing things" that are not objective. There is no doubt that such things happen, but when they do, they are almost invariably tricks and traps into STS illusions. The evidence that this is so is that they are not "objectively" available to all viewers. And so, when something operates on your subjective perception, it is very possibly real AND a trap. "Seeing the unseen" has nothing to do with seeing lizards or ghosts or any such subjective psychic phenomena.
A saying I heard years ago: "Neurotics build castles in the air; psychotics live in them." Added later: "4 D STS collects the rent."
Remember this: A and B influences can also be viewed as "creative" or "entropic," and certainly there can be "A" influences that may appear to be very "spiritual" or "esoteric". Remember what Mouravieff tells us about those who make the mistake of believing such delusions, quoted above, but worth repeating:
"This second figure, with black magnetic centres, represents the situation where man deludes himself and, believing he is absorbing 'B' influences and making the necessary selection all the while, he in fact absorbs 'A' influences, those of the black arrows that are in some way parallel to the white arrows of the 'B' influences. This will put him into contact with people who possess magnetic centres of the same nature: who are themselves duped or who dupe others, and who have no direct or indirect link with the esoteric Centre. "
Our only defense is purity of the magnetic center achieved via objectivity.
And so, we come back now to Robbie Burns who described a simple country girl all decked out in her fancy bonnet, her mechanical programs, seething with lice.
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An' foolish notion
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us
An' ev'n Devotion.
The gift of being able to see ourselves as others see us would save us from many errors and foolish thoughts and ridiculous behavior , and we would most certainly cease being devoted to those things that shore up and support our illusions about ourselves.
