"Helping:" STS or STO?

[mamadrama]

In another thread, I mentioned that I was considering starting a support group based on Sandra Brown and Liane Leedom's work and book, Women Who Love Psychopaths. After my own disasterous relationship and ongoing court battles with a narcissist, I came to understand the lack of support and understanding there is for women who are victims of this type of predator. Because of this, I contacted Sandra Brown about training she offers to qualified individuals so they can start support groups in their area. She was excited and supportive of me doing the training and starting the group. Since I brought it up on someone else's thread that wasn't specifically related to this topic, I am starting this new thread so that, if interested, others could offer their insights and experiences as to just what the nature of "helping" is. When is it STS and when is it STO. How do you tell the difference and is it a good use of one's energy? How does helping relate to the Work and how does it distract? You're welcome to use my situation as a springboard into the broader issue of Helping.

Edit and note to Moderator: If this is not exactly the right place for this thread, please feel free to move it elsewhere. Thanks.

 

[Smallwood]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Well, I see it so that a person has a right to believe in a lie, and trying to change that would be atleast in some cases STS. In my own case, I have for many years tried to wake up my parents and siblings to the machiavellian aspects of our reality, but most of them just don't want to see it. Doing so just creates negative emotions for little gain. True, there might have been a time and a place where that info might have been beneficial to them, atleast in a form of a concept, but I realize most of it was just directing my bad feeling to others.

My impression is that STO person should act as a light post to guide those who will welcome help into their lives. To give all to those who ask. If you can, post a list of traits of psychopaths & narcissists in any place you think would be wise (according to my experience those always generate a response), like a newspaper talk section. In the same post put some recommended reading too. The place I first read about psychopathy was in a women's magazine, interestingly. I guess that would cover the light post part. If it's for example an ad in a newspaper, those who'se choice would be to ignore it, would ignore it, those in whom it would resonate, would become interested. That shouldn't deprive anyone of their free-will.

As for the Work aspect of it, hosting a group like that would take a lot of time, osit. But it would be good for human contact and potentially a place to make a difference between someone's life or death. Many potentially dangerous thought loops could be avoided. I know how obsessive one can get about the subject especially when no one you know really takes you seriously, I would have much benefited from being in a serious psychopath-victim support group myself.

Oh well, I don't have much else to say on this subject, so I'll cut it right here.

 

[PepperFritz]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

I am starting this new thread so that, if interested, others could offer their insights and experiences as to just what the nature of "helping" is. When is it STS and when is it STO. How do you tell the difference and is it a good use of one's energy? How does helping relate to the Work and how does it distract?

Well, it might be good to start with some review material from the C's and the Cassiopaea Glossary:


Service to Others & Service to Self (from the Cassiopaea Glossary):

C's: STO is balance because you serve self through others.... STS is imbalance.... STO flows outward and touches all including point of origin, STS flows inward and touches only origin point.... An STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another.... STO gives all to those who ask....


All Who Ask (from the Cassiopaea Glossary):

The Cassiopaea material states that a service to others being gives all to those who ask. This invites the question of what is meant by giving and by asking and who truly are the parties of the exchange.

The crux of the matter is the difference between asking and manipulation. Manipulation seeks to control the manipulated and thus by definition limit the other's free will. Asking is an open-ended request which leaves the response up to the other party. Manipulation generally implies covert intent whereas asking generally does not. Distinguishing the two is difficult and not always clear-cut. Furthermore, humans generally neither ask nor manipulate as a single, unified being. More often than not, people are amalgams of contradicting programs and impulses, some of them tending towards STS, some maybe towards STO.

Acceding to manipulation generally amplifies the STS-ness of the manipulator. Thus for STO to be expressed, manipulation should be refused. Asking by people can be highly ambiguous and contradictory. For example, some people may actually ask to be refused when they make excessive demands. With proper discernment, one can give to the STO-tending parts of another and deny from the STS-tending parts of the same person. Denying manipulation may be seen to be doing a favor to the part which does not wish to take unfair advantage, should there be such a part.

We may consider for example lies to be an indirect request for truth. Thus giving all could be said to be giving all things their due, in accordance with upholding the principle of service to others. Discerning the true nature of the asking/request/manipulation is key here.

As with any general principle, this cannot be applied mechanically, without awareness of context. While our first connotation for giving is an exchange between persons, the idea is not limited to this. We can speak of giving all to a principle, as in dedicating one's life to a cause. We could say that making service to others oriented esoteric information available is a giving to the principle of free will. This is on one hand a response to a spirit of spiritual questing that exists among people often disillusioned with standard religion or the New Age, on the other hand a response to the lies and half truths promoted by the control system under the guise of these same movements.

In this world of mixed contents, the motives of giving, whether for personal satisfaction or as an expression of alignment with an impersonal principle cannot always be distinguished nor do they occur separately. Pure expressions of STO or STS are rare....

 

[Miss Isness]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Speaking from my experience as a massage therapist, I can say that it's important to recognize that the help comes through you and not from you. If you direct the help towards people who take it for granted, and do nothing to help themselves, you aren't helping. If you direct it towards people who honor it by doing their best to prove themselves worthy of it, it will have a positive impact. The trick is understanding which people are which, and it's not always black and white. It's important to maintain a balance, and set limits when things go too far in one direction.

I'm sure Sandra Brown, and her network have enough experience to help you steer clear of the major pitfalls, but of course there will be some things you will just have to learn for yourself. That's the fun part! Anyway congrats on your decision to be pro-active. If doing Sandra's training course is anything like going through massage therapy school, it will help you understand yourself a lot better. Of course, that's the first step to being of help to anyone else.

Hope you'll keep us posted on how it goes. Best wishes!!!

 

[Appollynon]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

I pretty much agree with all the advice given so far, and PepperFritz’s post has given me some additional food for thought concerning my own work, so thank you for that.

From my own experiences of helping and my interpretation (which I hope is correct) of the STO and STS principles in this respect, I believe there is a very fine line, but one that can be walked blindfolded with some practice.

When I look back at my formative years I can see now how easily I became identified with people who were “needy” and always needed someone else to help them through their problems (which caused many problems in my own life due to this). This identification I believe was partly due to my own programming and lack of, feeling needed in my early family life with my adoptive parents. So when I would meet someone who would tell me about great angst, tragedy, worries or problems in their lives, I would immediately (and rather narcissistically) slip into the “I – The hero/saviour” mode and become too identified with helping them with one problem after another. This also fed the Ego of that “I – The hero/saviour” (which I didn’t have the insight/knowledge to realise at the time) and became a very STS way of making this particular “I” feel good, this also made into one of my hardest programmes/”I’s” to overcome.

If you are helping in this way such as I did, then you are not really helping out of any STO tendencies, but rather helping yourself, because it makes you feel good about yourself, and inflates your ego of who you think yourself to be, but it is really just self calming and lying to yourself and likely coming form a more STS programme. I think this happens when you become far too identified with other people’s problems, trying to solve people’s problems for them and with wanting to be seen to be a helpful person.

How to walk the line and combat this?

The only two influences which have greatly helped with overcoming this mechanical part of me when prodded to appear, is the work done here on site and a conversation I had with my Reiki teacher, which has always stayed with me. My Reiki teacher had told me in our first meeting that it seemed, from what I had said to her, that I spent much of my life putting other people’s needs before my own, and helping others, and that I had suffered for this. She told me that she believed that no one person was born into this world to be anyone’s saviour, because if your so busy saving other people, who’s going to save yourself? She told me that in Reiki work, we cannot heal all of life’s diseases and discomforts for others, but we could help them to help themselves. This is what I believe to be the best and possibly only way of genuinely helping another in an STO way (for myself at lest, until I know myself better). This means that I can help to a certain degree, I can advise, and give ideas and support, but should not be the one to be “Doing” the act of making things better for someone. Whoever I am helping should “Do” themselves what needs to be done, with support and guidance from me, and that way they will learn more and be able to save themselves or help themselves in future as you have helped them build the necessary tools. Not only will I not become to identified with their situation, but they will also not become to identified with me as their hero/saviour, which can be just as negative a situation.

The knowledge of the work and of yourself and self reflection of your actions, can help you to see when identification takes place and when you go from wanting to help because it is asked for, and wanting to become someone’s hero/saviour because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. This is the fine line I mentioned, but with knowledge and self observation, and the odd helping hand form a school such as we have here, you can walk the line blindfolded in time.

Good luck with your support group :)

 

[mamadrama]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Thanks, all for your posts. Thanks, also PepperFritz for the cass information.

It's interesting that the idea of helping others so they can help themselves comes up repeatedly in your posts. The cassies certainly made that clear enough with their ever, "learning is fun" and their unwillingness to give all the answers. So do you think it's safe to say that is an important element to helping in an STO manner?

 

[little_star_orion]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

I think that if someone really wants help en is trying to make the situation better, in which this persons lives, then I see no point why it would be STS. The persons wants help, wants to get out of a negative situation and wants to learn to live a better life. Living live more into the light of truth, seems nice and looks more in a STO direction.

But if someone does not want help, you cannot force this persons to be helped, that would be STS. But the persons who don’t want help, would (mostly) not ask for it.

I once met someone who was in a relation with a man who beats her end threatened her. I only could try to make her see what was really going on. I tied to make her see that if he would really love her he would not treat her the way he did. She said she understood, but in the end she said she loved him and she stayed with him, with all the negative side effects, of being beaten and threatened.
At this point there was no more help I could give to her. It was her decision to stay with this man. Hopefully the day will come when she learns to see what is really going on, but I cannot make her see this, she has to do it herself. And when the time is right, maybe she will see, but not yet.

Little_star_orion

 

[Ivan_]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Ouspensky has some interesting answers on this matter :

"Of the desires expressed the one which is most right is the desire to be master of oneself, because without this nothing else is possible. And in comparison with this desire all other desires are simply childish dreams, desires of which a man could make no use even if they were granted to him.
"It was said, for instance, that somebody wanted to help people. In order to be able to help people one must first learn to help oneself. A great number of people become absorbed in thoughts and feelings about helping others simply out of laziness. They are too lazy to work on themselves; and at the same time it is very pleasant for them to think that they are able to help others. This is being false and insincere with oneself. If a man looks at himself as he really is, he will not begin to think of helping other people: he will be ashamed to think about it. Love of mankind, altruism, are all very fine words, but they only have meaning when a man is able, of his own choice and of his own decision, to love or not to love, to be an altruist or an egoist. Then his choice has a value. But if there is no choice at all, if he cannot be different, if he is only such as chance has made or is making him, an altruist today, an egoist tomorrow, again an altruist the day after tomorrow, then there is no value in it whatever. In order to help others one must first learn to be an egoist, a conscious egoist. Only a conscious egoist can help people. Such as we are we can do nothing. A man decides to be an egoist but gives away his last shirt instead. He decides to give away his last shirt, but instead, he strips of his last shirt the man to whom he meant to give his own. Or he decides to give away his own shirt but gives away somebody else's and is offended if somebody refuses to give him his shirt so that he may give it to another. This is what happens most often. And so it goes on.

 

[PepperFritz]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Of the desires expressed the one which is most right is the desire to be master of oneself, because without this nothing else is possible. And in comparison with this desire all other desires are simply childish dreams, desires of which a man could make no use even if they were granted to him.... Love of mankind, altruism, are all very fine words, but they only have meaning when a man is able, of his own choice and of his own decision, to love or not to love, to be an altruist or an egoist. Then his choice has a value.

In other words, until I become "master of myself", I cannot trust my own own motivations and constancy when I have the "desire" to "help" others. I'm just a machine that behaves in automatic, arbitrary fashion -- there is no real "I" capable of making the conscious, voluntary CHOICE to perform a truly altruistic deed. By default, the act of "helping" is no less STS than anything else I do -- because I am not yet capable of making a conscious STO choice.

To me, that's how Gurdjieff and the C's material ties together:

In Gurdjieff's language, we are "egoists" and "machines", not in control of our actions and motivations, not yet in a position to perform truly "altruistic" acts. Current task: Self-observation and networking as a means of getting to know our machines and the programs that govern our lives, in order to gradually uncover the "real I" -- the "self" that is truly able to CHOOSE.

In C's language, we are STS third-density beings, not in control of our actions and motivations, not yet in a position to perform a truly STO act. Current task: Through Knowledge and self-observation, get to know our true STS nature and how it governs our lives, in order to gradually become "STO candidates" -- for it is only after we graduate to 4th Density STO status that we will truly be able to CHOOSE.

 

[Mr. Premise]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

PepperFritz, I think the choice (of alignment) by necessity before graduation.

I also think there are STS 3D types, especially those who align with STS, who can control their actions and motivations.

I could be wrong, though.

In C's language, we are STS third-density beings, not in control of our actions and motivations, not yet in a position to perform a truly STO act. Current task: Through Knowledge and self-observation, get to know our true STS nature and how it governs our lives, in order to gradually become "STO candidates" -- for it is only after we graduate to 4th Density STO status that we will truly be able to CHOOSE.

 

[Ivan_]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

In C's language, we are STS third-density beings, not in control of our actions and motivations

We just don't know were many of our thoughts and reactions really originate from, osit.
I feel there is much more to it but i can not put my finger on it, i dont have enouh pieces yet.

 

[PepperFritz]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

PepperFritz, I think the choice (of alignment) by necessity before graduation. I also think there are STS 3D types, especially those who align with STS, who can control their actions and motivations.

Yes, I believe you are correct re all of the above.

 

[Buddy]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

...I am starting this new thread so that, if interested, others could offer their insights and experiences as to just what the nature of "helping" is. When is it STS and when is it STO. How do you tell the difference and is it a good use of one's energy?

Hi!
I would like to share my understanding so far and invite feedback to develop it even further and correct the flaws.
In the following hypothetical example, I pull into a gas station and begin fuelling my car.
I observe a guy walking from car to car and briefly speak to each driver.
He makes his way over to me and says “Excuse me sir, but would you have a few bucks you could spare? “ [Freeze Frame].
At this point I am aware of what he wants, so I take note of how he’s asking. Is he asking in such a way that I feel my freewill is being respected?...i.e., do I have the impression that I am free to say no without receiving any negative feedback from him? That he’s not really anticipating anything in particular and that if I were to say no, that he would be content with my answer and simply move on to the next car?
If I answer yes to these questions, then I would next have the responsibility to determine if my help would just be used as an excuse for him to continue in whatever commission or omission that has placed him in this situation, or would it be genuine help.
To determine this, I might simply ask something like “Well, I don’t have any spare money, per se, but I might be able to help. Tell me a little about why you’re in this situation?”
If I somehow see that his situation is due simply to being too lazy to work, too careless with his money, or somehow related to not taking his life responsibilities seriously, then I would be obligated by the STO dynamic to NOT help him. In this way he has to face his lessons and do whatever is necessary to learn and overcome or succumb.
If, however, it looks like he just simply suffered an unforeseen situation or accident or something like that, then in accordance with the STO dynamic, I WOULD give him my help in whatever way I could. Indeed, it seems that my help should be automatic, as if a door opens and the needed energy (in this case, money) just flowed out. It is understood here that even if he does ask correctly, I still have to check out his story to make sure I’m not potentially supporting his self-destructive activities. [I’m not quite as sure about this point. Don’t I still have the responsibility to find out what the truth is, even if he does ask correctly?]
Having asked correctly and myself having determined the truth or falsity of his story, I give what is asked because he asked. I do not want, expect, demand or request anything in return as that would require an STS orientation. If something is offered in return for my help, either immediately or sometime in the future, it would be accepted graciously and simply integrated as a group resource.
Ok, in this model so far, the guy has got his help because he asked correctly and I fulfilled my responsibility also. To cover the remaining factors, I need to rewind to the beginning.
In this version, the guy approaches the same as before. He has an “I don’t really want to have to do this” kind of expression. He launches into a sad story about how his car broke down umpteen miles back, his wife and 2 kids are waiting in the hot sun, and everybody’s really hungry and he is really sorry to have to impose on you, but could you help him out with some money so he could buy some (food, gas, supplies, whatever).
In this case he’s not really asking is he…he’s commanding. Why? The C’s mention this and I think it’s because of an implied threat if you don’t do what he’s asking. The threat being that you will experience guilt maybe…or that something bad will happen if you don’t help and maybe you will be responsible. At this point in creating this model of my developing understanding, I imagined that I would be perfectly within my rights to say something like: “I don’t think so. Look fella, I don’t mind helping folks in need, but my resources are very limited and I have a family of my own, and I don’t appreciate you assuming you can just come up to me and manipulate feelings of pity or sympathy or whatever, just to get me to help you out. Have a good day!”
As I considered this as a possible response, I realized that this reaction could be STS. Especially if it was provoked by a feeling of an “affront” to my imaginary “STO’ness”, or in essence, any feeling that I personally had about his approach.
I decided a better solution might involve a simple statement that would gently inform him of the lack of need for a manipulation and then I would say something like: “Tell ya what…I don’t have a lot of money, but let’s check out your story and if everything’s straight up, I’ll do what I can.” I am also thinking that no matter how tired or exhausted or bad I might feel, I should look at this as a test of my determination to achieve/maintain a commitment to STO orientation, and that I would pass or fail it before the night was over.
Ok, so at this point, the situation could go in a couple of different ways. I would think that if the story is legit, the guy would approve of and even help me to check him out since he would be interested to get the ball rolling. If the story was a hoax, he might say something like “Look, thanks but I’m really in a hurry. I gotta do this a certain way.” And off he goes to the next car. At this point my role in the drama is complete. I may want to really help, but he’s indicated an intention to force a particular solution so if I pushed in any way, I would be violating his freewill. On the other hand, if I checked out the story and saw that everything was true, then I would recognize an opportunity (responsibility?) to implement the STO help dynamic and would therefore pass the test.

I think I covered all the relevant principles involved. Am I in the ballpark here? Where can I correct the flaws?
In the forum rules is the statement “…our Vision for this forum: to create an environment for the stimulation, development and then the alignment of objective consciousnesses as defined and described by Georges Gurdjieff,” so, am I using the correct forum for this, or would it be more appropriate in Casschat? Thanks.

 

[PepperFritz]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Buddy:

The Cassiopaea material tell us, simply, that "STO gives all to those who ask" -- not just to those who "ask correctly". It also tells us that "an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another", which would preclude the determination of "true need" that you are proposing as a necessary pre-requisite before giving to another. As cautioned in the Cassiopaea Glossary (see above), one must be wary of those who disguise dishonest covert intentions in the guise of asking (i.e. manipulators), but otherwise, my understanding is that it is not up to us to determine whether someone who genuinely asks for help is "worthy" or "qualified" -- only that their request is genuine.

I believe that you are also off the mark in making the assumption that we are capable of determining whether an act of giving will or will not interfere with the asker's free will and/or third-density "lessons". You cannot know what lessons may or may not be involved in his request for help; nor can you know whether helping someone who has suffered an "unforseen circumstance" or "accident" could in fact be interfering with a pre-determined "lesson".

Some of the beliefs and assumptions underlying the "principles" you have aid out in your post have been around for a very long time, and involve the condescending concept of "the deserving poor" that was so popular among "do-gooders" in the Victorian age. Your "principles" also fail to take into consideration the possibility of STS motivations on the part of the "giver", which also requires careful examination.

It is tempting to try and lay out a set of general "rules" and "procedures" that one can easily follow when the issue of asking and giving comes up, but I think each situation is unique and must be carefully considered on an individual basis.

 

[Buddy]

"Helping:" STS or STO?

Wow! Awesome post! Thank you. I just felt myself stir in my slumber and realize I was just dreaming of being partially awake.

The Cassiopaea material tell us, simply, that "STO gives all to those who ask" -- not just to those who "ask correctly". It also tells us that "an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another", which would preclude the determination of "true need" that you are proposing as a necessary pre-requisite before giving to another.

Ok, I can understand that...that represents a non-judgmental attitude.

...that it is not up to us to determine whether someone who genuinely asks for help is "worthy" or "qualified" -- only that their request is genuine.

Point taken, and I agree now that I think about it more.

You cannot know what lessons may or may not be involved in his request for help; nor can you know whether helping someone who has suffered an "unforseen circumstance" or "accident" could in fact be interfering with a pre-determined "lesson".

Yep, you're right. I don't know why I didn't catch this flaw in my reasoning.

...the condescending concept of "the deserving poor" that was so popular among "do-gooders" in the Victorian age.

I see that now. At one time I had been aware of this concept but had forgotten it. I might have recognized it if I had looked.

Your "principles" also fail to take into consideration the possibility of STS motivations on the part of the "giver", which also requires careful examination.

Ok, it seems the only STS motivation that I considered was the "avoidence of unearned guilt". I realize now that STS motivations can include any emotion...including the feeling of "I'm a do-gooder".

It is tempting to try and lay out a set of general "rules" and "procedures"...

Yeah, you caught me here. It seems that as I grew up, I developed the habit of trying to model my knowledge/understanding of something before I actually tried to put it in practice because I was often afraid that when put on the spot, I would inevitably say or do the wrong thing and either embarrass or humiliate myself.
You've given me a lot to think about. Thanks!