"Helping:" STS or STO?

[Buddy]

Re: \

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.

I understand. There are so many people who need help and so much work to do, outside and inside ourselves.
And I know so little, that I have to spend time thinking about these things and 'fixing' myself, because if I can't improve my ability to BE in the fOURTH WAY work, then my ability to DO will not be so helpful after all. Yes, this concept of helping IS of utmost importance, but look at Laura's writings. If she hadn't used the information to help herself, how would we have gotten to this point?

To me, STO helping means not holding back anything that is asked for, and only offering everything that is needed. But what is needed? If my knowledge and external considering does not help me to understand, then sometimes, all I can offer is a shoulder to cry on, or just letting myself feel the sadness and try to meditate on something that makes me feel better.

 

[Al Today]

Re: \

To me, STO helping means not holding back anything that is asked for, and only offering everything that is needed. But what is needed?

Perhaps that is the $64,000 money question.!.!.! Exactly how does one KNOW what is needed? Being
the 3D person I am, with no ability to read minds, or any paranormal cool thing like that, I do not know what is needed. I can only relate how I worried over my kids. How do they act in public? At dinner in public, will they use a fork or their fingers? Will they pick their nose or excuse themselves. Are they quick to temper or will they be tolerant? Will they consider others? Will they make "correct" decisions? What is "correct"? Etc, etc ... Well, I think showing them the tools available and let them choose their path is all I can do. And being available to discuss whatever. Help them to think for themselves and being open for discussion. Help them understand there are no easy answers and to independently think for themselves, while thinking of others.
Then again, if they show no interest in what I think, so be it. They have their path to follow. No matter how it makes my heart bleed...

 

[PepperFritz]

Re: \

Perhaps that is the $64,000 money question.!.!.! Exactly how does one KNOW what is needed?

One does not, nor will one ever have that degree of certainty. That is part of the lesson, we are meant to feel the vast enormity and perilous pitfalls of our task. It is an incentive to work harder and more diligently at knowing ourselves, our motives, our programs, the workings of our machines; at learning discernment; at gaining knowledge; at practicing humility; at applying restraint; and at developing COURAGE, the courage to try and try again, even at the risk of making terrible mistakes.

We are not here to be STO, we are here to learn HOW to be STO, what it really means to be STO. If it were easy, it wouldn't be a lesson, would it?

 

[webglider]

Re: \

For intance an iv-drug user asks you for money - he really asks you, because he is desperate for a shot. Conventionally we can say, that we do not want to contribute to his self-harming habit. But then, we may interfere with his lessons. And is he truly able to ask without expectation - he desperately needs his next shot?

Perhaps one can choose to give money to a desperate iv-drug user to prevent the future mugging of someone else out of desperation. In that case,the person who is being helped is not the person asking for help, is not someone part of the original scenario, but someone who may be dragged into it through a series of events and fall prey to the Law Of Accident.

I have a few firm rules that I use as a guide for giving money to people who ask in public places:

Before I leave the house, I often set aside a certain amount of money that I will give to those who ask. I will give that amount and no more except in one particular circumstance which I will describe below.

I often give to the musicians who play in the subways.

I often give to the people who walk through the cars asking for money. It's my way of saying,"Hey, guy, I see you, and I wish you the best."

I always give to kids who say that they don't have money to get home. I also let them use my cell phone to call their parents.

I imagine that some of the people I give to are con artists. But life is hard for poor people in New York and getting harder all the time. Rents are going up, the price of food is going up, and it is not so easy to find jobs.

I see it like this: some people are playing me, some people are truly desperate, and if I give regularly, it evens out.

I don't give small sums of money, but often, if I am the first to give, others will give too.

I haven't looked at it in terms of STS or STO, just in terms of the law of averages.

I give in other ways as well, but the method of giving described above seems the cleanest and most objective.

 

[Ruth]

Re: \

Perhaps one can choose to give money to a desperate iv-drug user to prevent the future mugging of someone else out of desperation. In that case,the person who is being helped is not the person asking for help, is not someone part of the original scenario, but someone who may be dragged into it through a series of events and fall prey to the Law Of Accident.

Only encourages STS if you remove all consequences for a person who is, or has made some mistakes. We've all got to face consequences whether we like it or not. And the sooner the better. Some are harsher than other too, but depend on a person's ability to 'pull themselves together'. A crime isn't an accident - at least by the person who commits it.

 

[Buddy]

Re: \

I hope the following helps someone reading this thread:

I've recently realized that this forum, itself, provides plenty of examples we can use to figure out 'how' to help and to decide if our idea(s) of help in a given situation is STS or STO.
Using what I've learned so far, I've been able to release myself from the compulsion to engage in conversations where I strongly disagree with a position on an issue.
I see my goal as trying to obtain total objective understanding of an issue so that I can view it from all possible angles simultaneously, while retaining the flexibility to view it from any particular point I choose. For that, I have to find out where emotions are holding me in place, thus the need to work on 'BEing' while learning.
I've realized that in my day to day life outside this forum, other's views on politics, religion, price of gas, or whatever, are entirely correct and don't need anything from me.
How? Well, unless they're speaking from a position of total objective awareness, then they are simply communicating what "it" looks like from a position that doesn't include all the relevant information and how "it" fits into the overall picture. In that sense, there is no difference to what I was doing.
So from my understanding of 'putting their needs first', if validation/confirmation is all they're looking for, then that's what they get. Because after all, that "is" how it is...from THAT viewpoint. And I can let it go, because "THAT" is not what matters most.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Re: \

To me, STO helping means not holding back anything that is asked for, and only offering everything that is needed.

Although sometimes you have to "hold back" from giving exactly what is asked for in order to preserve free will, or not interfere with lessons, or simply because it would "hurt" the receiver in some manner if you simply give what is asked for - specifically hurt the part that you seek to serve. So if you serve truth, you will not give lies just because someone wants lies. If you serve freedom you will not give enslavement if someone asks for it, etc. So I think it's always a matter of choosing what aspect of the universe we serve and adjust what we give, how we give, and why we give with respect to that choice - and with respect to the specific context/circumstance we find outselves in. STS "gives" what it has to offer - control, subjectivity, lies, enslavement, etc in order to benefit itself. STO gives what it has to offer - knowledge, objectivity in order to help someone grow and expand their awareness and free will as a result.

I think that's why the C's often denied Laura information about things when it interfered with her lessons or free will - because those things are what the C's serve, not merely our curiosity that does not consider anything else but its own immediate gratification, often at the expense of something much more important to our development. So just cuz someone wants something doesn't mean STO should provide it. It's not "unconditional" giving at all, which would be silly and pointless and self-defeating I think.

But what if somebody does not want to advance? What if development is not "important" to them at all? Or they have their own perspective of what development means? Maybe they just want to serve themselves? Are we determining their needs by considering the development of their being (as we understand this concept) important even when THEY don't think so - and therefore refuse to give them what they want and "need" from their perspective? I don't think so cuz we're still not giving them what they haven't asked us for - we're not interfering or deciding on their behalf what they need or what is important to them. We are deciding on *our* behalf what is important to us, and what we choose to serve, and what we choose not to serve, and why. If we seek to enhance the free will of others we will do so when asked - but we cannot take it away when asked. We also cannot enhance it when not asked or when its impossible.

Perhaps this is what FRV is - when entities serve a different "face of God" - so they will naturally not have anything in common or have any reason to interact with entities of significantly different FRV and chosen purpose/goals.

So I think STO considers both - the objective aspect of the universe it serves, and what is asked for by the entity on as many levels as it can perceive. And then make sure what it gives does not violate either. So never give if it wasn't asked, but if something is asked, only give if it is in line with the aspect of the universe you serve. At least that's my understanding right now.


Edit:
The C's did say give ALL to all who ask - which I think is true as long as we think about what "give" means. If you think about it, you cannot "give" enslavement - that's really TAKING freedom. So although you could put the word "give" in front of anything, it doesnt' always make any sense. You cannot GIVE ignorance or GIVE lies - because you're actually just taking knowledge, taking truth. You cannot give darkness - darkness is the absense of light, so "giving" darkness just means "removing" light. So I think if you define "give" only by what is substantial and objective and a real addition/enhancement of someone's being rather than detraction from it, you end up with ALL being simply light/knowledge/free will. Anything that limits this, isn't giving, it's taking.

 

[Buddy]

Re: \

SAO, this was a very helpful post for me. It took awhile to assimilate all the info.
I found it very useful to go back over my knowledge of self-observation, internal/external consideration, and how the choice to serve the STO orientation is a moment-by-moment issue. I realize that, just as individuals are composite beings, the universe is also a composite, and my choices DO need to be based on my perceptions of as many levels as possible, and what aspects I'm wanting to serve and not serve.
I went back and studied what I could find of "the third force" and added FRV (as examples of how 'triggers' can work) to the formula along with 'thinking with a hammer' as it relates to impressions and 'B' influences.
I still have a ways to go to get all this unified, but it's starting to make more sense to me.

I have taken to heart all the references to "BEing" that I have run across, such as:
in the post:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2638.msg26737#msg26737

...where Laura quoted from her work "Secret History...":

We generally explain our failures as "lack of will." What people do not realize is that failure is not generally due to a lack of will or desire, but to a lack of BEING. It is only with the development of BEING that we begin to understand the knowledge we have acquired. Only then, with understanding combined with BEING, do we have the ability to Do.

and this from Laura in another thread:

...you cannot possibly know anything about the subject.

Why do I say that?

Because you have not knowledge of, or control over yourself; you have no BEing.

and here, Laura quoting Gurdjieff:

"This fear of losing sincerity is of course self-deception, one of those formulas of lying upon which human weaknesses are based. Man cannot help identifying and considering inwardly and he cannot help expressing his unpleasant emotions, simply because he is weak. Identifying, considering, the expressing of unpleasant emotions, are manifestations of his weakness, his impotence, his inability to control himself. But not wishing to acknowledge this weakness to himself, he calls it 'sincerity' or 'honesty' and he tells himself that he does not want to struggle against sincerity, whereas in fact he is unable to struggle against his weaknesses."

"Sincerity and honesty are in reality something quite different. What a man calls 'sincerity' in this case is in reality simply being unwilling to restrain himself. And deep down inside him a man is aware of this. But he lies to himself when he says that he does not want to lose sincerity."

"...Our lies about what is really happening in our lives are what we use to "patch up" our egos with rationalizations and justifications, all of which conceal from us the fact that we cannot really DO anything because we have no Being."


I realize I'm taking these quotes out of context, but I'm just saying that I realize the importance of applying what we learn, as we learn it, and how that demonstrates and increases our understanding and helps grow our being to the point where more and more of our knowledge begins to make sense.

I also realized how my "solution" was a good example of thinking with the lower intellectual center that seems mostly concerned with aspects of the world in terms of 'polarity'. I see now, how there is much more involved, and I understand why it is so difficult to answer the question "what is needed in a given situation when someone 'asks'?"

...because the answer is situation-specific and is based on all the knowledge and impressions you can get as well as a thoughtful consideration of what aspects of the other person and the situation is involved - and - what you want to serve and how much freewill you have based on your knowledge.

Thank you for this enlightening post.

 

[PepperFritz]

Re: \

...the choice to serve the STO orientation is a moment-by-moment issue... just as individuals are composite beings, the universe is also a composite, and my choices DO need to be based on my perceptions of as many levels as possible, and what aspects I'm wanting to serve and not serve.... the answer is situation-specific and is based on all the knowledge and impressions you can get as well as a thoughtful consideration of what aspects of the other person and the situation is involved - and - what you want to serve and how much freewill you have based on your knowledge.

Extremely well expressed and summarized, Buddy. I have bookmarked your post for future reference....

 

[Miss Isness]

Re: \

quote by SAO

The C's did say give ALL to all who ask - which I think is true as long as we think about what "give" means. If you think about it, you cannot "give" enslavement - that's really TAKING freedom. So although you could put the word "give" in front of anything, it doesnt' always make any sense. You cannot GIVE ignorance or GIVE lies - because you're actually just taking knowledge, taking truth. You cannot give darkness - darkness is the absense of light, so "giving" darkness just means "removing" light. So I think if you define "give" only by what is substantial and objective and a real addition/enhancement of someone's being rather than detraction from it, you end up with ALL being simply light/knowledge/free will. Anything that limits this, isn't giving, it's taking.

Nice! Very logical. I'd also like to point out that offering something should not be construed as being the same thing as giving without being asked. There's no harm in offering when someone is free to choose to accept or reject. Of course, this implies the person who offers is letting go of any attachment to a particular response.

 

[Jacques]

Re: \

I'd also like to point out that offering something should not be construed as being the same thing as giving without being asked. There's no harm in offering when someone is free to choose to accept or reject. Of course, this implies the person who offers is letting go of any attachment to a particular response.

Hum, i am not sure about that because i might say that if i give something to someone, he is not obliged to accept it. I might be way out, but one could say to another person who is not asking, that he is offering something and he has the choice to accept it or not. But in the first place, the person never asked for that or never asked that someone offer something to him.

It does look quite similar to me.

 

[PepperFritz]

Re: \

Hum, i am not sure about that because i might say that if i give something to someone, he is not obliged to accept it. I might be way out, but one could say to another person who is not asking, that he is offering something and he has the choice to accept it or not. But in the first place, the person never asked for that or never asked that someone offer something to him.

I think it's a fine line, one that can only be walked with discernment. I'd say that someone is merely "offering" when, in conversation where a related subject comes up, they make a suggestion in a certain direction: to read a book, check out a website, think about xyz, etc. But to push it further without a clear request for further help/information, etc. is an attempt to "determine the needs of another". You are in essence saying "Even though you are not responding positively to my suggestion, I think you need to hear more, so I'm going to tell you...." Likewise when you offer someone a physical object or service. If you see an elderly person struggling down the street with heavy packages and offer to help them carry them, there is no harm in offering to help. But if your offer is declined and you continue to push/insist, you are crossing the line. OSIT

 

[Nienna]

Re: \

Hum, i am not sure about that because i might say that if i give something to someone, he is not obliged to accept it. I might be way out, but one could say to another person who is not asking, that he is offering something and he has the choice to accept it or not. But in the first place, the person never asked for that or never asked that someone offer something to him.

I think it's a fine line, one that can only be walked with discernment. I'd say that someone is merely "offering" when, in conversation where a related subject comes up, they make a suggestion in a certain direction: to read a book, check out a website, think about xyz, etc. But to push it further without a clear request for further help/information, etc. is an attempt to "determine the needs of another". You are in essence saying "Even though you are not responding positively to my suggestion, I think you need to hear more, so I'm going to tell you...." Likewise when you offer someone a physical object or service. If you see an elderly person struggling down the street with heavy packages and offer to help them carry them, there is no harm in offering to help. But if your offer is declined and you continue to push/insist, you are crossing the line. OSIT

I have to agree here there is a very fine line.

In offering something that is not asked for could be keeping that person from learning lessons that need to be learned. It could also be giving energy to the other person's downfall into whatever they are trying to get out of. After all, we are all here to learn lessons no matter how hard they are to learn. Without learning them we are doomed to repeat them until we do learn them. Giving help where it is not asked for could be very detrimental to the recipient.

And this, also, brings up the fact that some who are asking for something may actually need to be denied whatever they are asking for in order to learn the lesson that is before them.

A tricky dilemma indeed.

I think that if one is giving something to someone who has not asked for it, we need to be very sure that we are not lying to ourselves and are actually doing it for our own selfish reasons and to just make us feel good about ourselves.

fwiw

 

[Pierre]

Re: \

I think that if one is giving something to someone who has not asked for it, we need to be very sure that we are not lying to ourselves and are actually doing it for our own selfish reasons and to just make us feel good about ourselves.

fwiw

And we also need to be sure that the one we are giving something doesn't have some "yes" programs preventing him from saying "no". In this case the one who receives is not really free to accept or not since he's only able to say "yes".

 

[Seamus]

Re: \

PepperFritz suggested I look through this thread to gain perspective on my desire to "help" people around me, and my inability to say no:

It is sometimes almost impossible for me to say no, and I have a tendency to make commitments that I can't keep, to tell people I will try to do something for them when I know that I can't or know that I won't if I am paying attention....

I think you need to see this as a kind of "instant gratification", whereby you make yourself feel good in the moment by saying what another person wants to hear (regardless of whether it is true), in order to please them and cause them to think well of you. You are unable to discipline yourself to consider before speaking because your need for others' approval takes precedence.

Recently someone told me that their philosophy is to "underpromise, that way you always overdeliver". This has become a sort of mantra for me recently and I think this is another example of shifting from internal to external considering....

I'd say you are simply looking for an alternative way to get people to think well of you, and feed your need for approval -- which really boils down to manipulation of others. Also, you need to give some thought to whether all this "doing for others" is actually "helping" them -- or you. That issue is discussed at length in the Helping: STS or STO? thread (where you may wish to continue the discussion).

I used to have a similar "need" to "help others" (whether asked to or not) and an inability to say no to others' requests, which often led to my feeling burnt out and resentful when others were not sufficiently "grateful". Through the Work I came to see that such behaviour on my part was purely mechanical, and far from being "selfless", was simply a means by which I could use others to feed my "feel good" hunger, and avoid dealing with my own issues.

I read through the thread and several entries in the Cassiopaea Glossary and I would like to join in the discussion (although it has been quiet for a few months) so that I can clarify my own understanding of this concept, basically by summarizing the concepts covered and by relating them to my experience.

The desire to help others feels like the right thing to do, and it is common to hear people (especially adults speaking in relation to children, or do gooders talking about poor people) say things like "we're doing this for your own good." This is an example of "helping" in a way that interferes with lessons and abridges free will (in the case of the parent/child relationship) or in a way that makes the "helper" feel good about themself (do gooder/poor). This is an example of the idea that "An STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another...." This is also part of the process of Internal Considering and relates to your point above.

[quote author=Cassiopaea Glossary]
Internal considering can be likened to man's inner predator. It feeds itself by engaging in subjective fantasies where it thinks it is other than it is. It will also seek to gain external confirmation for its distorted self-image by manipulating others to confirm it in its views. Man may go to much trouble to make an impression, simply in order to have his own illusory, internally considered self-image reflected back to himself from others.
[/quote]
http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=40

My actions boil down to a "way to get people to think well of you, and feed your need for approval". I lie to myself and tell myself stories about how great, powerful, smart, helpful, etc. I am and when I seek to "help" someone, or when I say yes without thinking about what that means, I am looking to make an impression. I am validating the lies. So in other words, "helping" in the STS, internal considering sense of the term, stems from the fact that I am lying to myself, every minute of every day, in order to keep my personality intact.

If the person is grateful for the "help" I give them my personality is validated because I can feel virtuous for "saving" others, and if a person refuses my "help" or is annoyed or angry because they identify my manipulation on some level, my personality is still validated because then it can look down on that poor fool who would dare to refuse the "help". Either way, the predator feeds.

I see this process or program most often manifesting in my life when I try to "help" other people to learn about the things that I am learning. This is especially a problem in my relationships with my mother and my sister I think. I try to "help" my mother to learn what I am learning because I see personality traits in her that I don't like in myself, and I try to "help" my sister sometimes in a patronizing, older brother way.

PepperFritz pointed out the extreme importance of the need to work on cleaning your machine in several posts in this thread. Only after we help ourselves can we help others. This is something that I have professed to be striving for and working towards for years. The more I read from the recommended list the more I realize that the reason I have often felt like I'm stuck in neutral is because I've been lying to myself. Deep down I don't feel like I'm making progress, because I'm not. This has lead me to condemn and judge and "beat myself up" in many instances, and this too is a trick. I've been mistaking my weakness and lazyness for "hard work" and I project my own weakness on those around me and try to "help" them to feel better about not helping myself.

Even though I understand this on an intellectual level and cannot yet see It, recognizing that my actions are being mechanically controlled by a predator mind, by a false and empty personality, gives me something to fight against, instead of chasing my own tail.

[quote author=Cassiopaea Glossary]
Internal considering is in very concrete terms man's natural enemy who seeks to prevent man from being himself. The predator will at all times prefer an illusion of virtue to the naked truth about itself. Still, it is not useful to morally judge or condemn the predator, just like it is useless to condemn a cat for eating mice. Still, one must disengage from identifying with this predator. Claiming to Work while engaging in internal considering is a contradiction in terms. The forms of internal considering can however be extremely subtle and one cannot always detect them, thus constant vigilance is required. The predator of internal considering may well claim to engage in merciless self-observation, to aspire to consciousness and being and any other virtues and even trick itself to believe it is progressing towards these goals while all the while only feeding its vanity and desire for recognition.
[/quote]

In order to help someone in an STO way, they must first ask for my help, then I need to consider whether or not they are trying to manipulate me. I must have a real I. I must be conscious in order to make a decision.

[quote author=Cassiopaea Glossary]
Only through having external considering can one serve others. This requires responsiveness and a sense of objectivity and awareness of what is right action for the given situation. Serving in the sense of merely carrying out commands is not external considering.
[/quote]

To close I'd like to flip this question and try to ask for help without attempting to manipulate. Since "The crux of the matter is the difference between asking and manipulation" and since I "neither ask nor manipulate as a single, unified being", maybe one way to ask without trying to manipulate is by attempting to observe myself and sharing the experience with the person I am asking for help. You should know that "I" want to be right, I hope that I covered this topic in a way that "correctly" conveys the concepts we are discussing. I feel a fear that I will make a mistake and be corrected as a tightness in my throat. Part of me is asking you to give me your thoughts and insights in the hope that you approve of my analysis, so that "I" can feel like progress is being made. Part of me wants you to think that I know what I am talking about, that I am wise, and that I'm trying really hard to wake up so that you'll respect me and think I'm important. My shoulders are tense and my fingers are cold. My mouth is pursed and my face is tight. I try to laugh at my own sense of self importance, my indulging. Part of me is hoping that someone will cut through what I have written here and unmask a part of "It" that has been hidden, impatient for "real work" to begin, impatient to "get somewhere".

Thank you for reading my post!

Seamas