"Helping:" STS or STO?

[mamadrama]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

The easiest way to test his desire for "help" would be to offer to take him to and pay for a treatment program -- then see how fast he rejects your assistance.

But here again we have another consideration which is not to determine the needs of another. So it is rather a conundrum. How do you discern a sincere question for help without prejudicing it with your own idea of what that help should look like?

 

[PepperFritz]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

But here again we have another consideration which is not to determine the needs of another.

No, you're getting confused now. When the C's say "An STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another", they are referring to the situation where one administers "help" without having been asked for help, i.e. giving help against another's free will and consent -- which is a big no-no. If you are in doubt about this, go back to the transcripts and read their comment in its full context. What we have been discussing above is what we do AFTER the request for help has been made.

How do you discern a sincere question for help without prejudicing it with your own idea of what that help should look like?

By giving the situation and individual very careful time, energy, and thought. By carefully examining yourself and your own beliefs, prejudices, and motivations. Again, sometimes it will be very difficult, and we will inevitably make mistakes. But we must try.

 

[mamadrama]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, PepperFritz.

 

[PepperFritz]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, PepperFritz.

Just wanted to add this (which came to me while I was downstairs making coffee):

Remember that the C's are STO. How many times has Laura and her cohorts begged them to provide them with information that they "need" to know, that they are convinced will "help" them? And how many times have they said, no, it will not really "help" you if we provide that to you. When they do that, they are practicing the kind of discernment that goes with being STO -- placing one's "help" within the context of the bigger picture....

 

[Buddy]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

When the C's say that "STO gives to all who ask", it is understood they mean "all who ask for HELP", not "all who ask for ANYTHING". In your hypothetical scenario it would be pretty clear cut that giving the addict money for his next fix would not be "helping" him in any way. The easiest way to test his desire for "help" would be to offer to take him to and pay for a treatment program -- then see how fast he rejects your assistance.

The first step in "giving" in those situations is to "give" our time, energy, and thought to learning as much as we can about the individual involved, in order to make the best decision we can.

It seems to me that the ideas contained in the above two quotes address the crux of the matter and resolve all my questions at this point.
Specifically, the first quote addresses a situation where it's more or less obvious what your help would be used for. The second quote addressing a more ambiguous situation in which you really want to help but the right decision doesn't immediately present itself.

Concerning the following quote:

I think it is very important that we not let our fear of making mistakes stop us from getting involved. Inevitably, as we strive to learn what STO giving really is, we WILL make mistakes, but that is part of learning what STO giving really is -- discovering what it is NOT.

I would like to add that I think we can have faith that any consequences for mistakes made while sincerely trying to help would be limited in extent and much easier to correct as opposed to consequences resulting from malicious intent.

 

[Buddy]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Remember that the C's are STO. How many times has Laura and her cohorts begged them to provide them with information that they "need" to know, that they are convinced will "help" them? And how many times have they said, no, it will not really "help" you if we provide that to you. When they do that, they are practicing the kind of discernment that goes with being STO -- placing one's "help" within the context of the bigger picture....

A poignant observation. As I read the transcripts, I could feel the frustration during those instances.
Many times I have struggled to understand something, projecting a lot of ideas within my field of view, trying to add more, burning up a lot of mental energy trying to hold them in place until I could see the connections and reach the desired understanding.
If someone had come along who knew the answer, I would say something like "Come on, help me out here. I'm just not getting it. If you don't tell me
I'm not going to understand and be able to move past this." As a response to my plea, if that person had looked at me with amusement and asked me "Learning is fun isn't it?" I would probably have felt like exploding with a comeback, like "What?!?" "Does it LOOK like I'm having fun to you?"
Seriously though, if all is really just lessons then this lesson definitely ranks up there in importance. Can you imagine how many people have benefitted from it so far?

 

[PepperFritz]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

I would like to add that I think we can have faith that any consequences for mistakes made while sincerely trying to help would be limited in extent and much easier to correct as opposed to consequences resulting from malicious intent.

I question this conclusion, and am curious about the thought processes you went through to reach it. Sounds like wishful "self-calming" reasoning, to me.

A mistake is a mistake, and one's intentions have nothing to do with the potential consequences of doing the wrong thing. There's a lot of truth in the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Also, if we knew in advance the outcome of all of our decisions and choices, there would be no learning involved, would there?

Potential consequences are just one more reason why I think that "giving" our time, thought, discernment, etc. is the most important first step in "helping" another, and why it is SO IMPORTANT to strive to become aware of the workings of our own Machine, so that we can avoid responding to requests for help in a purely mechanical (programmed) fashion and/or from our own STS desires and impulses. That's where the real "pitfalls" lay -- not in in the degree of our "sincerity" or "good intentions".....

 

[Buddy]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

I question this conclusion, and am curious about the thought processes you went through to reach it. Sounds like wishful "self-calming" reasoning, to me.

I really had to think about this one. I looked back over my post to try and see how my conclusion flowed from what came before.
I don't seem to be entirely sure. My first thought was: how could this not be self-evident? My second was the realization that what was self-evident to me may not necessarily be so evident to others.
So, having been taken to task to explain it, I realized that I wasn't using ANY critical thinking here. It looks like it has a mechanical, simple associative nature.
It probably represents a holdover from years of accepting religious dogma related to the "virtue" of self-sacrifice. As I recall, when I wrote this conclusion I had the briefest flash of the following (which I had long ago substituted as a "feeling" rather than it's visual representation):

I was seeing myself feeling good when I gave something away because it was asked for. I was seeing someone who was sent by "God" because "when you live by faith, God will send you the people who need help", and then I saw the person take my help - but before he could "do the right thing" - he "fell" backward and used it to hurt himself with drugs or whatever. I then saw myself as blameless because I "did the right thing" and will therefore, not be held responsible by "God" for what "HE did".
Wrapping all this up into a ball has the feeling of: "how bad could it possibly be if it's the "will -o- God"?
It WAS self-calming wasn't it?
I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, but I think I'm gonna be sick.

 

[Ruth]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Why would the therapist need to "deceive" the client by "sneaking" the Reiki in? Why not simply ask him/her for their consent outright? That suggests to me a scenario where the therapist would be bringing their own needs ahead of the client's. The therapist really wants to "practice" the Reiki on the client, but fears the client may refuse consent if asked directly; therefore, he/she decides to do it covertly. The issue is not whether any "harm" would be involved; it is an issue of respecting another's free will.

This has not been my experience with Reiki as the energy that flows through the person who is 'practicing' the Reiki (known as the chanel) is not of them, it merely flows through them. They are like a conductor, if you like. This energy is suppposed to come from some sort of universal energy. So, perhaps it is STO in nature and only flows when and to the place necessary? Also, everyone seems to benefit from it (including the chanel), although we often can't pick the way in which that happens.

The person receiving the energy determins where it is going to be used and how.... They may even determin how much of it they receive. There should be no depletion going on for anyone, including the chanel. In this way, the person receiving Reiki does not have their free will violated, but instead determins how much of it they want and where it is going to do. Or perhaps their higher selves do, I'm not sure.

If the Reiki chanel choses to, they can advise that they are a Reiki chanel and that it is possible that some of this universal energy will be flowing through them as they do a massage. I can't see any harm to receiving universal energy especially as it is free and does not violate free will.

In Reiki II, a person is able to do distance healing using a proxy. When 'invoking' the person's presence, we advise that they are: "free to accept or reject this reiki energy, but that their response must be for the highest good". I think that the being I'm addressing is probably the person's higher self. And they can answer yes or no.

The biggest problem I have when I'm doing Reiki is that I tend to let my own impressions, ideas and interpretations 'come up' in these sessions. This probably doesn't help my awareness, but I do acknowledge that I am merely a chanel, or a conductor, nothing more...

 

[Buddy]

Re: \

I need to ask a question, and this seems to be the best place to put it.

Every day I have a deeper and more profound respect for the work being done on this forum. I am learning so much, and so much that I've read previously, is coming together and clicking in new ways.
Then I find myself revisiting this issue of STO "helping".

In the thread: Cassiopaea Forum » Cassiopaean Sandbox » Bloggers Blog » iChing Politics
and the post:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2638.msg26737#msg26737

There is this:

Now, we live in STS 3D reality, can you really use anything for anything else then self-serving purposes.

Certainly. C's have described an STO being: one who gives ALL to those who ASK. It isn't easy and the "devil is in the details," but awareness and intent go a long way.

So, my question is:
When Laura said "...awareness and intent go a long way", is she basicly saying the same thing as this:

...and why it is SO IMPORTANT to strive to become aware of the workings of our own Machine, so that we can avoid responding to requests for help in a purely mechanical (programmed) fashion and/or from our own STS desires and impulses. That's where the real "pitfalls" lay -- not in in the degree of our "sincerity" or "good intentions".....

...or is there another way to view the answer to deckard?


My difficulty with that particular post seems to be related to my efforts to unify 'external consideration', where you come as close as possible to putting yourself in another person's shoes, and the warnings about trying to determine the needs of another. Then again, maybe the former refers mainly to day-to-day interactions.

I don't understand my lack of comprehension, but now, at least I have a better idea of why - it's related to the 'dampers' in place and my level of 'BEing' at the moment (tiny, tiny, tiny ).



I apologize if there's too much 'noise' in my post. I'm also having difficulty restraining myself from including so much of my thought process, as well as the excitement coming from everything I'm learning!

 

[Buddy]

Re: \

OK, I must apologize for reactivating this thread for such an inane waste of the reader's time.
I just HAD to go back and approach the problem from a deeper understanding of 'external considering' and the 'strategic enclosure' as well as a thorough review of the thread this post is in.
I have much more of the understanding I was looking for.
I will do my best to prevent this in the future.

 

[PepperFritz]

Re: \

My difficulty with that particular post seems to be related to my efforts to unify 'external consideration', where you come as close as possible to putting yourself in another person's shoes, and the warnings about trying to determine the needs of another.

Remember, the C's comment about it not being STO to "determine the needs of another" specifically refers to stepping in to act in a "helping" manner in another's life when such "help" has not been asked for. It has nothing to do with trying to "understand the needs of another" in an effort to practice "external consideration" or act in a compassionate manner towards that person.

Do you see the distinction?

 

[Buddy]

Re: \

Do you see the distinction?

Let's just say the dawn has arrived and full daybreak can't be too far ahead. :)


Regarding this aspect of the issue:

...stepping in to act in a "helping" manner in another's life when such "help" has not been asked for.

...it can be viewed as a form of initiating force against the mind or BEing of another (thus violating freewill). Even if the 'force' is nothing more

than a 'benign appearing' effort along the lines of: "Here...this is what you need to get/do/have/understand/be aware of/believe/know, etc.,etc.

For me, Gurdjieff has made it quite clear how I lie to myself continuously and how I can easily mistake 'approaching the problem with our own

requirements' as a 'sincere desire to help'.
A clue came from a little self-observation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get the impression 'it's all about me'. MY perception of the

problem, MY idea of what's needed, or MY desire to avoid a conflict of a different, internal type (MY, MY, MY...always about ME).

Now, looking at STO helping as it relates to the post I was having trouble with:
It appears that Laura was gently trying to bring deckard's awareness around to the importance of the individual in the process, including what the individual brings to it (fears, misunderstandings, motivations, intent, mental/emotional problems, etc.). In point of fact, the iChing could NOT be dismissed so easily by someone in a capacity of STO giving because STO gives ALL to those who ASK. There can be no 'holding back' from exploring a possible avenue of help, because that would be STS.

As Aristotle explained: There are no genuine contradictions in reality. "An 'A' can not be both 'A' and 'B' at the same time and in the same respect."
So viewing from the standpoint of having been asked, genuine STO giving cannot hold back something due to preconceived notions or for any other reason, because you could only 'hold back' from a position of internal considering, and that is definitely NOT putting someone's needs or interests ahead of your own (external considering).

In the light of this explaination, I feel like I have a better grasp of the distinction. But it is just the dawn and I am barely awake.

Thanks to everyone.

 

[Al Today]

Re: \

Do you see the distinction?

Let's just say the dawn has arrived and full daybreak can't be too far ahead. :)

...stepping in to act in a "helping" manner in another's life when such "help" has not been asked for.

Hello Buddy,

Up front, forgive my emotions and simple speech. Having been here awhile, I have seen many come and go. To me, you seem well read and quite communicative. Every now and then, I have said some regretful statements, and am know to have been wrong, and please tell me if I am not correct? You have not answered the question. Many words, but what about the question? I just can't help but feel uneasy when a basic 'yes' 'no' question goes unanswered... Again, my emotions sometimes rule my mouth for which I apologize.




edit: I have more to say. Again, this concept is of utmost importance. I feel compelled to speak. Many threads have been started for those never ending riddles. Those bumper stickers asking what would jesus do? The riddles ask what would you do? But this question of "help" rips my heart out. To see people make their choices... Sadness. What makes me think I know anything better? What makes me think I know how to council them? What if they may want to help themselves? And have no clue, no where to turn Perhaps I think this is a clue. Like in the bible, don't give them fish, show them how to fish?

Buddy, I see I cannot answer the question any better than you.

 

[Buddy]

Re: \

...You have not answered the question. Many words, but what about the question?

Hi Al Today,

You are correct and my apologies to you and everyone else.
I sometimes forget that I can get carried away drawing a 'word picture', when a simple brushstroke would be enough to communicate the asked for information. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

My answer is "yes" I understand the distinction. But I must leave the door open for more knowledge so I don't get "stuck" in this position.



edit - fwiw, your 'emotions and simple speech' are very eloquent (movingly expressive). The kind of writing I enjoy the most.