How is the Entropic Force in our World coordinated?

[Ruth]

It’s like saying everyone human on 3rd density is ‘respiratory’. A point to note, perhaps, but you don’t go far with it unless you start to make a comparison of the relative efficiency of ‘respiratory’ systems, their tendency to disease or health, and how respiratory processes may be consciously utilised or ignored.

That's an interesting point of view and goes along with people who tend to believe that 'we are all OPs until we chose not to be'. But, here's a slighly different point of view:

Q: Mouravieff says that there are two kinds of humans - he calls the "pre-Adamic" and "Adamic," [discussed in book III]. The idea is that pre-Adamic human types basically have no "soul" nor any possibility of growing one. This is a pretty shocking idea, but there have been recent scholarly discussions of this matter based on what seems to be clinical evidence that, indeed, there are human beings who are just "mechanical" and have no "inner" or "higher self" at all. [See: "Division of Consciousness"] Gurdjieff talked about this and so did Castaneda. Are these ideas Mouravieff presents about the two basic TYPES of humans, as far as they go, accurate?
A: Indeed, though again, there is a "Biblical Gloss."
Q: Mouravieff says that the "pre-Adamic" humans do not have the higher centers, nor the possibility of developing them in this cycle - which we assume to be the Grand Cycle you have previously described, the length of which is around 300,000 years. Is this an accurate representation of "pre-Adamic" beings?
A: Yes, they are "organic" portals between levels of density.
Q: Based on what Mouravieff has said, it seems to be so that any efforts to try to raise the consciousness of such individuals is doomed to fail.
A: Pretty much. Most of them are very efficient machines. The ones that you have identified as psychopaths are "failures." The best ones cannot be discerned except by long and careful observation.

OPs are in fact different from us in the way that they cannot get access or create 'links' to their higher centers. They simply can't. Its like a person who doesn't have an arm or a leg (accept it's a great deal less visible than that).

And you have reminded me that the main fact about ‘organic portals’ is that, lacking a ‘soul’ at this stage, they are extremely vulnerable to being vectored, possessed and utilised by STS … as opposed to being inherently evil per se.

Does this make them 'more evil' (I don't think so) or even 'more vulnerable' to being utilised by STS? I suppose this may depend of how STS is capable of using people who do not have these access to higher centers. I'm not sure it does make them more vulnerable, but I could be wrong. I've certainly seen what appears to be an OP being used by both a psychopath and an STS individual (who chose to be under the control of this psychopath).

 

[anart]

That's an interesting point of view and goes along with people who tend to believe that 'we are all OPs until we chose not to be'.

It is not a belief, Ruth, although as stated it sounds rather twisted. It is not simply 'choosing' not to - it is Working to function in a way that is different than the way OPs function - Working to function less mechanically. I am finding it rather difficult to believe that after all this time, and after SO many explanations to you about such concepts that you still are unable to 'get it'.

Q: Based on what Mouravieff has said, it seems to be so that any efforts to try to raise the consciousness of such individuals is doomed to fail.
A: Pretty much. Most of them are very efficient machines.

How fascinating that you would highlight this section of his quote.

 

[Ruth]

I am finding it rather difficult to believe that after all this time, and after SO many explanations to you about such concepts that you still are unable to 'get it'.

Maybe I already do, but then, how would anyone, including yourself, really know? Everything I say is greeted with dismisivness, ignored, reversed back on me or described as 'twisted' (you haven't gotten round to the "manipulative" part yet - obviously - leave that for somebody else, I suppose?) and occasionally with patronising contempt. I'm not sure how the human race will benefit from that or how it is going to improve anyone's understanding on reality. But its definately an eye opener for me.

How well people acuse others of doing exactly what they do. Its the same process but used with different facts/circumstances and maybe to many different degrees.

Q: Based on what Mouravieff has said, it seems to be so that any efforts to try to raise the consciousness of such individuals is doomed to fail.
A: Pretty much. Most of them are very efficient machines.

How fascinating that you would highlight this section of his quote.

So, our understanding of OPs can be 'enhanced' by our understanding of how a machine works. I've noticed that some of the people I've thought were OPs were quite mechanical in their ideas, its one of their 'things'. I have also been interested in what makes a person mechanical and what constituted OP 'mechanicalness'. I think I've got the answer - it's programing.

This presents a bit of a dilema for a non-OP as all the programing they receive is designed to produce (usually) a negative emotional response. How to they 'deal' that? They can sometimes become more mechanical, like an OP, repeating over and over again the same responses without even thinking about what they are saying; what it means; or why they are saying it and certainly not listening to another persons response. Seen any of that lately? I guess that is one way of dealing with the negative emotions. I suppose that might be considered a bit ironic too?

 

[Mark]

It’s like saying everyone human on 3rd density is ‘respiratory’. A point to note, perhaps, but you don’t go far with it unless you start to make a comparison of the relative efficiency of ‘respiratory’ systems, their tendency to disease or health, and how respiratory processes may be consciously utilised or ignored.

That's an interesting point of view and goes along with people who tend to believe that 'we are all OPs until we chose not to be'. But, here's a slighly different point of view:

If a person understands the basics of the Work and has done some amount of Work on themselves - and that's IF - then it becomes clear based on the teachings along with observation of one's self and others that unless we learn how to 'clean the machine' we're open to manipulation through a variety of means. And if we can be manipulated then we're essentially a portal.

There's that particular view - shared by those who've seen it so there's no longer a way not to see it (short of outright denial) - and any number of other views, which are misguided since they aren't based on enough data and/or possibly due to a lack of objective observation.

Have you ever watched the movie Arlington Road? The main character was a portal of attack (because he wasn't in control of his emotional center) and that's a really good example of how others are too to various extents.

 

[anart]

Maybe I already do, but then, how would anyone, including yourself, really know?

We would know because it would be evidenced in your posts - your understanding would be clear through what you write. As a matter of fact, this is quite clear by what you write.

Everything I say is greeted with dismisivness, ignored, reversed back on me or described as 'twisted' (you haven't gotten round to the "manipulative" part yet - obviously - leave that for somebody else, I suppose?) and occasionally with patronising contempt.

Just a quick note here, Ruth - simply because it seems you are missing a rather important aspect of the dynamic. Many people have spent a very large amount of time and energy over the years to converse with you about this topic. No one - (no one I know anyway ) would expend time and energy to do such a thing if they did not value you and if they did not want to understand your perspective and help you to understand their perspective.

It is infinitely easier to ignore - to not respond, to walk away, than it is to converse and point out certain aspects of what you say; certain aspects that are consistently contrary to the general understanding of the specific topic - in an attempt to share information and knowledge with you.

If you have felt so consistently attacked and undermined, which I do not think is the truth of the situation, then why in the world have you stayed? Why in the world have you stayed and posted 887 times on a forum on which you feel maligned, attacked and dismissed?

 

[Saman]

Ruth, have you ever asked yourself that maybe you have become obsessed with this topic. It seems that you keep coming back to it over and over again because you wish to "discuss" it. Do you fear that you are an OP and wish to prove it wrong because of your "self importance"? Is this why you have quoted the C's above and keep reiterating this topic from time to time. Maybe you might want to make something "positive" out of your obsession and provide new data to the discussion, rather then taking what has already been read, researched, and understood in regards to the current available data and "discussing" (trying to refute without new data to the contrary; fruitlessly debating rather then discussing) it. This would be most helpful if you want to discuss this topic and I think it would make a "positive" out of your "negative" obsession, and perhaps this "positive" will then help you to move on and not obsess on who is or who isn't an OP and your fear of being an OP or not. If you already understand that we are all mechanical like OP's to various degrees due to commonly shared programmings, which either have more, or less, or no significant control over us due to either common or unique ameliorating factors in our individual lives, that is, factors that may nullify the control of these programs to various degrees, then why the need to keep coming back to this subject? Maybe a good question to ask yourself would be: what else do you think is so essential to know and how can I research the answer. When you find that question and answer, it may perhaps help you to move on and let go of this obsession that has been stagnating you to repeatedly focus your attention on this subject.

FWIW

 

[Russ]

Whether you are an OP or not, the important things are still basically the same, gathering real knowledge about yourself, your surroundings, and maintaining the direction you have chosen in life.

Theres a lot of work to do. When we are very young we live in the "as is" world, we don't believe much, the only thing we have which is programmed into us, aside from our genetics, is our instincts. I mean think about how differently you operated, and how you saw the world, when you were say, 1-2 years old. But we trade in this "as is" world, where we see more of the truth than even adults, for the "as if" world of convention. And as we age, this "as if" world takes a stronger and stronger hold, we are even punished for straying from it. And what at least I think is important, is to get back to that "as is" world, and improve upon it, not letting our instincts take over, but to maintainin the clear sight of what is real, even if the reality is that you don't know hardly anything.

In the more "as is" world, OPs and souled people are just a theory. Considering we can't tell the difference between an OP and a souled person, we have to accept there is no proof that there is such a divide, but nothing that really denies it either.

I use another word, which hmm might be slightly demeaning towards people, but I think its a good word because it has a mechanical meaning to it - drones. Both OPs and souled people can be drones, I think. What I mean by drone is exactly what you would think of as a drone, a machine which is programmed to do certain things, and doesn't think for itself. It probably isn't the best word, but it does make a bit of sense. Drones perpetuate the "as if" world by remaining how they are, and they spread it like a virus. I think that this mechanicality is more important than if someone is an OP or souled person or not, firstly because it is an observable phenomenon in other people and in ourselves.

And you can ascribe to it certain levels, for instance you can find complete and total drones, they show absolutely no sign of not being mechanical. And you can find people who have some drone type habits but for the most part are thinking for themselves. But its more complex than that because there are so many areas where you can be a drone and yet not be a drone in other areas, and of course how mechanical you are determines how much you can spot mechanical behaviour.

So I kind of keep the "Souled/OP" thing in the same compartment as the big bang theory and stuff like that, its interesting to know, just because it helps to know of different possibilities, and opens my eyes to different ways of looking at the world and how it might operate, but I haven't really found much of a practical use for it. Definately I am not starting to label people OPs. But I am guilty of labelling a few people as being kind of droney ;/ including myself at times ;)

 

[Peam]

OPs are in fact different from us in the way that they cannot get access or create 'links' to their higher centers. They simply can't.

Ruth, you quote the Cs and Mouravieff who say that Op’s don’t have those higher centers, but you also say that OP’s "cannot get access or create links to their higher centers." So do you think they potentially have them or not? And if you think they potentially have them, could you explain what's preventing them from ever ‘accessing’ them in this cycle?

Also what would you say is the observable differences in behavior and attitude of an adamic who hasn’t yet developed access or links to their higher centers and an organic portal.
If you can’t observe any difference then how would you know whether you were with an A OP or B an adamic who hasn’t yet ‘linked’ to their higher centers, in your dark alley senario?
If you can detect the difference then for the sake of sharing, could you please enlighten us of those differences.

 

[Renaissance]

I am finally – you will no doubt be pleased to hear – almost speechless…

Yep, an emotional attachment can have that effect when it's confronted. You posted just a couple of the probably thousands of links the Jesuits have in relation to our control system. But there's good reason members here are dismissing these links as the 'be all and end all' causation of the mess we're in. Why? Because it barely scratches the surface. The surface of our control system has a lot of details and you could write endless volumes about it, which on that level appear to be completely valid. The problem with 'surface material' is that, by it's nature it cannot provide a knowledge that will assist in the development of humanity, and it also cannot show the intricacies of how the human psyche has been twisted by such acts of evil. Bits and pieces of such and such event linked to this person linked to so and so group are all you'll ever get. But where does that get us in understanding our situation to the point where we can do something about it?

Say millions of people were pulled from the earth to establish a new colony on a new planet. Their minds were erased from everything they've ever known. Won't evil still exist and grow? Or just say there is evil on other human planets. Surely the Jesuits are not responsible for that evil too. It is something else. The political ponerology material provides a means to study evil. I think if you are really asking "How is the Entropic Force in our World coordinated?" then you'll find a lot of answers in researching that study.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

It never fails to amaze me how people can become resentful and "offended" by the most benign and constructive advice or requests. Emotional attachments, self importance, and programs never fail to predictably distort any critical questioning into personal attacks. Most of that has already been mentioned during subsequent posts, I just wanted to bring up a few that particularly stood out for me:

It would be a good practice not only for developing your discernment, but out of consideration for the forum, to search the forum for discussions about the sources you are listing.

Thank you for your concern about my ‘developing discernment’. You actually have no idea about my level of discernment.

Anart never said anything about the level of Kieran's discernment (upto that point in the discussion), her advice equally applies to anyone on any level of discernment. But Kieran saw it as telling him that he has a low level of discernment when that's not at all what Anart said.

Are you a Catholic, Anart?
If so your apparent hostility and dismissiveness make sense.

His inability to even conceive of the possibility that he may be wrong forced him to explain Anart's lack of agreement by (!!) seriously considering if Anart is religious. He'd have to COMPLETELY miss the whole point of this forum and be totally unaware of anything Anart ever wrote on other threads. Given his previous posts this is clearly not true, he is aware. So what can possibly explain him completely forgetting everything he knows about this forum in a flash, and proposing one of the most laughable theories anyone could propose who spends even 5 minutes on this forum? Apparently self importance, his attachment to his post.

Hello Ruth
I knew there had to be openness and reason here somewhere.

Sure, because it's the one person who ignored all the information Kieran posted and the conversation that followed and brought up what to me appears to be an irrelevant hypothetical question instead. Then Kieran procedes to write 2 huge posts answering it, apparently because he's really glad to go off topic and focus on something else entirely - and invest loads of energy into it. Did anyone else find that odd and somehow interesting? I'm sure if asked he may say "I just wanted to be helpful and share my thoughts on a thought-provoking question, what's wrong with that?" or something along those lines. But considering the context, and how much energy he put into answering the question, one that some others I think rightfully suggested is for the "tickle me" section, it sure struck me as a diversionary tactic, perhaps even subconscious one because he was "attracted" to Ruth's post - because it was the only one he didn't perceive as critical and therefore an attack.

Don’t be too alarmed by mudrabbit … he thinks he lives in a nice house … probably in the ‘briar patch!’

That attack was 2 birds with one stone - aimed at mudrabbit AND at the forum itself since she called it a "house", meaning, he think it stinks. Well if he thought this house is so bad, why is he sticking around?

Kieran, when your emotions aren't running the show, you write very good posts.

Which is exactly what was so shocking to me personally about this whole episode. He is an intelligent guy with good input, and he wasn't confused about the nature and purpose of this forum. Which is why his question if Anart was Catholic was so bizarre.

First of all I am quite cool when I post. I choose my words carefully. I am aware of the likely effect they will have – both on the general reader, and also on people who are dialoguing with me.

Considering all that transpired, clearly this is absolutely not true, he was not cool, he was not choosing his words carefully (unless he was consciously lying and manipulating), and he had no idea what effect they will have because he was by his own terms "speechless" at Anart's reaction to it - clearly shocked and surprised. So that's at least one of the contradictions going on, clearly because different "i"'s are in charge at different times, one is not aware of the other.

I was quite aware of the likely response from the ‘moderators’ when I replied to Anart’s post.

Though I gotta admit, that's creepy. That just comes off like he did this whole thing consciously and knowingly. I'm wondering at this point if that's the case, or would the inherent contradictions in his behavior and words suggest otherwise, that he was at the mercy of his own mechanicalness and really didn't realize it?

Sorry if I'm a day late and a dollar short, I missed this thread and just saw it today. Just my 2 cents. And fwiw, Anart you're really taking the heat around here lately, somehow you're "public enemy number one" nowadays in threads that go very similar to this one. I guess that only means you're doing something right! :P

 

[dant]

Thanks for your insight, SAO.

This whole episode reminds me of 'The Matrix', where Mr. Smith
was seen to have vibrated/morphed in/out of certain individuals?

Very creepy, indeed.
OSIT

 

[salleles]

You took some quotes right out of my mouth SAO. Anyway, here they go again:

"Thank you for your concern about my ‘developing discernment’. You actually have no idea about my level of discernment."

"Are you a Catholic, Anart? If so your apparent hostility and dismissiveness make sense."

"Aside from that possibility, however, I have to say that I found your churlish post to be unnecessarily hostile, unhelpful, and plain ignorant. Maybe everyone who read it felt as you do."

"I simply cannot be bothered to spend the time continually having to point out the basics of civilised social interaction with a petulantly antagonistic moderator."

Now in the same post Kieran suggests:

You might like to ponder the virtue of ‘politeness.’ I have had occasion to draw your attention to this before! It is not weakness. One can be very forceful, as well as polite, when necessary. It is just the manifestation of an attitude of ‘respect’ for another human being (...)

I rest my case. How contradictory can one get?

 

[John G]

...Though I gotta admit, that's creepy. That just comes off like he did this whole thing consciously and knowingly. I'm wondering at this point if that's the case, or would the inherent contradictions in his behavior and words suggest otherwise, that he was at the mercy of his own mechanicalness and really didn't realize it?

Sorry if I'm a day late and a dollar short, I missed this thread and just saw it today. Just my 2 cents. And fwiw, Anart you're really taking the heat around here lately, somehow you're "public enemy number one" nowadays in threads that go very similar to this one. I guess that only means you're doing something right! :P

Actually you are quite timely given the ongoing thread where Kieran got banned. I was thinking that was the reason for your post till I got to the end. Good points, Kieran did seem creepy and incoherent like he expected Laura to thank him later for exposing all the corrupt Catholic sympathizing moderators here.

 

[domi]

Thank you for your concern about my ‘developing discernment’. You actually have no idea about my level of discernment.

Sarcasm and aggression. The post starts off already showing your state of mind.

Yes. It would be a thousand times better for Kieran to recognize his own reactive state of mind as a way to developing proper discernment, since, it will often happen that when we react to something we will project onto others what we don't see in ourselves, since by unconsciously projecting something within ourselves outwardly onto someone else we can then become more conscious of it by seeing it "out there." Seeing this in ourselves is a good way to begin to learn proper discernment!

The sad irony is that the predator mind has Kieran convinced to look 'out there', away from itself.
Reminds me again of the MCS vectoring thinking and that there is a website/boogeyman/etc for everybody. In this case the black pope straw man.

 

[cholas]

And fwiw, Anart you're really taking the heat around here lately, somehow you're "public enemy number one" nowadays in threads that go very similar to this one. I guess that only means you're doing something right!

It seems, Anart, that you are one of the coarser grains in the sandbox.
Something I and certainly others value greatly! I imagine it's expected that
some of us will complain endlessly of the scratches. Makes for an excellent opportunity
to learn how to see our emotional attachment programs being triggered, not
to mention self-importance. Osit

-n