How My Aunt Marge Ended Up in the Deep Freeze . . .

Pashalis said:
Well, I clearly don't get what you are trying to tell me at the moment.
Any specific Topic anyone could recommend me to read, since I'm not able to find something that fits the description of "wrong use of sex"?

"Is complete sexual abstinence necessary for transmutation and is sexual abstinence, in general, useful for work on oneself?" we asked him.

"Here there is not one but a number of questions," said G. "In the first place sexual abstinence is necessary for transmutation only in certain cases, that is, for certain types of people. For others it is not at all necessary. And with yet others it comes by itself when transmutation begins. I will explain this more clearly.

"For certain types a long and complete sexual abstinence is necessary for transmutation to begin; this means in other words that without a long and complete sexual abstinence transmutation will not begin. But once it has begun abstinence is no longer necessary. In other cases, that is, with other types, transmutation can begin in a normal sexual life — and on the contrary, can begin sooner and proceed better with a very great outward expenditure of sex energy. In the third case the beginning of transmutation does not require abstinence, but, having begun, transmutation takes the whole of sexual energy and puts an end to normal sexual life or the outward expenditure of sex energy.

"Then the other question—'Is sexual abstinence useful for the work or not?'

"It is useful if there is abstinence in all centers. If there is abstinence in one center and full liberty of imagination in the others, then there could be nothing worse. And still more, abstinence can be useful if a man knows what to do with the energy which he saves in this way. If he does not know what to do with it, nothing whatever can be gained by abstinence."

"Speaking in general, what is the most correct form of life in this connection from the point of view of the work?"

"It is impossible to say. I repeat that while a man does not know it is better for him not to attempt anything. Until he has new and exact knowledge it will be quite enough if his life is guided by the usual rules and principles. If a man begins to theorize and invent in this sphere, it will lead to nothing except psychopathy. {Gurdjieff did not mean psychopathy as we use the term, but rather as a "sickness of the soul".}

"But it must again be remembered that only a person who is completely normal as regards sex has any chance in the work. Any kind of 'originality,' strange tastes, strange desires, or, on the other hand, fears, constantly working 'buffers,' must be destroyed from the very beginning. Modem education and modem life create an enormous number of sexual psychopaths. They have no chance at all in the' work.

"Speaking in general, there are only two correct ways of expending sexual energy— normal sexual life and transmutation. All inventions in this sphere are very dangerous.

"People have tried abstinence from times beyond memory. Sometimes, very rarely, it has led to something but in most cases what is called abstinence is simply exchanging normal sensations for abnormal, because the abnormal are more easily hidden.

"But it is not about this that I wish to speak. You must understand where lies the chief evil and what makes for slavery. It is not in sex itself but in the abuse of sex.

"But what the abuse of sex means is again misunderstood. People usually take this to be either excess or perversion. But these are comparatively innocent forms of abuse of sex. And it is necessary to know the human machine very well in order to grasp what abuse of sex in the real meaning of these words is. It means the wrong work of centers in relation to sex, that is, the action of the sex center through other centers, and the action of other centers through the sex center; or, to be still more precise, the functioning of the sex center with energy borrowed from other centers and the functioning of other centers with energy borrowed from the sex center."

"Can sex be regarded as an independent center?" asked one of those present.

"It can," said G. "At the same time if all the lower story is taken as one whole, then sex can be regarded as the neutralizing part of the moving center."
[...]

"In the first place it must be noted that normally in the sex center as well as in the higher emotional and the higher thinking centers, there is no negative side. In all the other centers except the higher ones, in the thinking, in the emotional, in the moving, in the instinctive, in all of them there are, so to speak, two halves—the positive and the negative; affirmation and negation, or 'yes' and 'no,' in the thinking center, pleasant and unpleasant sensations in the moving and instinctive centers. There is no such division in the sex center. There are no positive and negative sides in it. There are no unpleasant sensations or unpleasant feelings in it; there is either a pleasant sensation, a pleasant feeling, or there is nothing, an absence of any sensation, complete indifference.

"But in consequence of the wrong work of centers it often happens that the sex center unites with the negative part of the emotional center or with the negative part of the instinctive center. And then, stimulation of a certain kind of the sex center, or even any stimulation at all of the sex center, calls forth unpleasant feelings and unpleasant sensations. People who experience unpleasant feelings and sensations which have been evoked in them through ideas and imagination connected with sex are inclined to regard them as a great virtue or as something original; in actual fact it is simply disease. Everything connected with sex should be either pleasant or indifferent. Unpleasant feelings and sensations all come from the emotional center or the instinctive center.

"This is the 'abuse of sex.'

"It is necessary, further, to remember that the sex center .... is stronger and quicker than all other centers. Sex, in fact, governs all other centers. The only thing in ordinary circumstances, that is, when man has neither consciousness nor will, that holds the sex center in submission is 'buffers.'

'Buffers' can entirely bring it to nought, that is, they can stop its normal manifestation. But they cannot destroy its energy. The energy remains and passes over to other centers, finding expression for itself through them; in other words, the other centers rob the sex center of the energy which it does not use itself.

"The energy of the sex center in the work of the thinking, emotional, and moving centers can be recognized by a particular 'taste,' by a particular fervor, by a vehemence which the nature of the affair concerned does not call for.

"The thinking center writes books, but in making use of the energy of the sex center it does not simply occupy itself with philosophy, science, or politics — it is always fighting something, disputing, criticizing, creating new subjective theories.

"The emotional center preaches Christianity, abstinence, asceticism, or the fear and horror of sin, hell, the torment of sinners, eternal fire, all this with the energy of the sex center. ... Or on the other hand it works up revolutions, robs, bums, kills, again with the same energy.

"The moving center occupies itself with sport, creates various records, climbs mountains, jumps, fences, wrestles, fights, and so on.

"In all these instances, that is, in the work of the thinking center as well as in the work of the emotional and the moving centers, when they work with the energy of the sex center, there is always one general characteristic and this is a certain particular vehemence and, together with it, the uselessness of the work in question.

"Neither the thinking nor the emotional nor the moving centers can ever create anything useful with the energy of the sex center.

"This is an example of the 'abuse of sex.

"But this is only one aspect of it. Another aspect consists in the fact that, when the energy of the sex center is plundered by the other centers and spent on useless work, it has nothing left for itself and has to steal the energy of other centers which is much lower and coarser than its own. And yet the sex center is very important for the general activity, and particularly for the inner growth of the organism, because, working with 'hydrogen' 12, it can receive a very fine food of impressions, such as none of the ordinary centers can receive. The fine food of impressions is very important for the manufacture of the higher 'hydrogens.' But when the sex center works with energy that is not its own, that is, with the comparatively low 'hydrogens' 48 and 24, its impressions become much coarser and it ceases to play the role in the organism which it could play. At the same time union with, and the use of its energy by, the thinking center creates far too great an imagination on the subject of sex, and in addition a tendency to be satisfied with this imagination. Union with the emotional center creates sentimentality or, on the contrary, jealousy, cruelty. This is again a picture of the 'abuse of sex.'"
 
shellycheval said:
there was a horrifyingly mistaken belief that young children did not feel pain the same way as adults due to their "incompletely developed" nerve systems, and they were often sutured and even operated on without anesthesia.

Whose idea was this?! Surely they must have noticed the screams and the angst of a person in pain? I still can't grok it. If you have local anesthesia, why don't use it? I know that some European countries don't use anesthesia when stitching children, the elderly or any person. I don't understand why would anyone forgo it if it makes everybody more comfortable in such an unsettling situation.
 
Psyche said:
shellycheval said:
there was a horrifyingly mistaken belief that young children did not feel pain the same way as adults due to their "incompletely developed" nerve systems, and they were often sutured and even operated on without anesthesia.

Whose idea was this?! Surely they must have noticed the screams and the angst of a person in pain? I still can't grok it. If you have local anesthesia, why don't use it? I know that some European countries don't use anesthesia when stitching children, the elderly or any person. I don't understand why would anyone forgo it if it makes everybody more comfortable in such an unsettling situation.

What is even more horrifying is that they would do full surgeries on babies with the administration of only a paralytic. Nephew of my ex had open heart surgery at a few months (or weeks, can't remember) with no anaesthesia, just the paralytic. I was so horrified I was speechless. And his parents thought it was okay.
 
Laura said:
Psyche said:
Whose idea was this?! Surely they must have noticed the screams and the angst of a person in pain? I still can't grok it. If you have local anesthesia, why don't use it? I know that some European countries don't use anesthesia when stitching children, the elderly or any person. I don't understand why would anyone forgo it if it makes everybody more comfortable in such an unsettling situation.

What is even more horrifying is that they would do full surgeries on babies with the administration of only a paralytic. Nephew of my ex had open heart surgery at a few months (or weeks, can't remember) with no anaesthesia, just the paralytic. I was so horrified I was speechless. And his parents thought it was okay.

The same belief is still present here. That it's ok not to use anesthesia on small children or infants, because (as claimed) they forget their experiences .
 
Thanks Daenerys for that excerpt (from "In Search Of The Miraculous" I guess?).

I definitely think (feel would be more accurate) that some parts must apply to me in some way, but I'm not really able to grok what it exactly is and how it works.

I guess that you can see something in the way I write and interact here and elsewhere that I can not grasp at the moment?
 
Laura said:
What is even more horrifying is that they would do full surgeries on babies with the administration of only a paralytic. Nephew of my ex had open heart surgery at a few months (or weeks, can't remember) with no anaesthesia, just the paralytic. I was so horrified I was speechless. And his parents thought it was okay.

This is beyond horrifying! This is worse than being buried alive.
 
Pashalis said:
Thanks Daenerys for that excerpt (from "In Search Of The Miraculous" I guess?).

I definitely think (feel would be more accurate) that some parts must apply to me in some way, but I'm not really able to grok what it exactly is and how it works.

I guess that you can see something in the way I write and interact here and elsewhere that I can not grasp at the moment?


"The energy of the sex center in the work of the thinking, emotional, and moving centers can be recognized by a particular 'taste,' by a particular fervor, by a vehemence which the nature of the affair concerned does not call for. "The thinking center writes books, but in making use of the energy of the sex center it does not simply occupy itself with philosophy, science, or politics — it is always fighting something, disputing, criticizing, creating new subjective theories.

As Laura said, argument for the sake of argument, missing the crux of the matter.
 
Daenerys said:
As Laura said, argument for the sake of argument, missing the crux of the matter.[/size]
Perhaps missing the crux of the matter is the product of the sex center usurpation in 'spinning ones wheels' on being unnecessarily argumentative or as pointed out at some earlier point; skeptic for the sake of being skeptic.

Psyche said:
Laura said:
What is even more horrifying is that they would do full surgeries on babies with the administration of only a paralytic. Nephew of my ex had open heart surgery at a few months (or weeks, can't remember) with no anaesthesia, just the paralytic. I was so horrified I was speechless. And his parents thought it was okay.

This is beyond horrifying! This is worse than being buried alive.

It tuly is horrific! Reminds me about that scenario which the C's gave Laura to broaden the channel, about how the Lizzie's pinch the hearts of children with open cavaties for maximum pain/grief energy. Looks like they trained the authoritarian followers well, but it's hard to conceive that this practice hasn't gotten more negative press (than I think it has), considering what we're supposed to know about trauma and body memory.
 
I wonder also if this insensitivity towards babies is culturally related to the practice of circumcision and other forms of mutilation.
 
mkrnhr said:
I wonder also if this insensitivity towards babies is culturally related to the practice of circumcision and other forms of mutilation.
Probably. It's my current understanding that people from different cultures, beliefs, etc also experienced such ignorance.

Relegating a human being (or any other being) to the status of a thing (to place them below oneself) makes it much 'easier' for some to commit atrocities as it allows them to conveniently sidestep personal responsibility.
 
Daenerys said:
Pashalis said:
Thanks Daenerys for that excerpt (from "In Search Of The Miraculous" I guess?).

I definitely think (feel would be more accurate) that some parts must apply to me in some way, but I'm not really able to grok what it exactly is and how it works.

I guess that you can see something in the way I write and interact here and elsewhere that I can not grasp at the moment?


"The energy of the sex center in the work of the thinking, emotional, and moving centers can be recognized by a particular 'taste,' by a particular fervor, by a vehemence which the nature of the affair concerned does not call for. "The thinking center writes books, but in making use of the energy of the sex center it does not simply occupy itself with philosophy, science, or politics — it is always fighting something, disputing, criticizing, creating new subjective theories.

As Laura said, argument for the sake of argument, missing the crux of the matter.

Yes. This is the part I would emphasize: "it is always fighting something, disputing, criticizing, creating new subjective theories".

In your hurry to declaim "OH NO! The movie had NOTHING to do with the real case... see, I read it here... TA DA!!! It's all wrong! Doesn't prove anything about BERNIE!" - you ended up sort of making a fool of yourself because the careful reading of the article on the crime website makes it pretty clear that the movie DID follow the facts rather closely; more closely than most movies of that type do.

So why was this? What made you in such a hurry to fight, to dispute, to criticize, to declare YOUR SUBJECTIVE THEORY??!!

We both read the same article and I probably read it a lot faster than you did, almost skimmed it, and immediately saw how much like the real case the movie actually was. So why didn't YOU see that? What blocked that from your mind?

And it isn't the first time that you have come along in a discussion and introduced this same subjective, argumentative note.

So, what's up?
 
I just want to say that it's been an eye opener for me.

I never considered that someone repressed as Bernie was or anyone else for that matter (still have to watch the video linked before) could commit such acts under specific circumstances.

It makes much more sense now. Thanks !
 
Tigersoap said:
I just want to say that it's been an eye opener for me.

I never considered that someone repressed as Bernie was or anyone else for that matter (still have to watch the video linked before) could commit such acts under specific circumstances.

It makes much more sense now. Thanks !

Watch the Barbara Hershey movie. Don't delay. It really is important.
 
Laura said:
Fason testified that when Betty Gore shushed Candy 25 years later, it brought back a flood of repressed memory that touched off a violent "dissociative reaction." The Houston psychiatrist described that phenomenon as a form of neurosis that can prompt "out of body" experiences. Sufferers sometimes do things without knowing it during bouts of amnesia, sleepwalking or dream states.

Doesn't Martha Stout talk about this type pf dissociative reaction in Myth of Sanity? I seem to recall her saying that sometimes people were committing acts they would never otherwise commit in this type of dissociative states (and even in some cases, "pass on" the abuse from one generation when people had vowed to stop it). It's fascinating (and horrifying) because it does look like when a (karma-based?) scenario is supposed to play out, it finds a way to do so, no matter what... Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, though.

I hear people say things like 'anybody can be a killer' and I think that this would typically be the psychopaths pushing that kind of ideas to muddy the waters about their kind but there could actually be some truth in that, then, even if the devil IS in the details...

We will watch the movie tonight.
 
Mrs. Tigersoap said:
Laura said:
Fason testified that when Betty Gore shushed Candy 25 years later, it brought back a flood of repressed memory that touched off a violent "dissociative reaction." The Houston psychiatrist described that phenomenon as a form of neurosis that can prompt "out of body" experiences. Sufferers sometimes do things without knowing it during bouts of amnesia, sleepwalking or dream states.

Doesn't Martha Stout talk about this type pf dissociative reaction in Myth of Sanity? I seem to recall her saying that sometimes people were committing acts they would never otherwise commit in this type of dissociative states (and even in some cases, "pass on" the abuse from one generation when people had vowed to stop it). It's fascinating (and horrifying) because it does look like when a (karma-based?) scenario is supposed to play out, it finds a way to do so, no matter what... Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, though.

I hear people say things like 'anybody can be a killer' and I think that this would typically be the psychopaths pushing that kind of ideas to muddy the waters about their kind but there could actually be some truth in that, then, even if the devil IS in the details...

We will watch the movie tonight.


IMHO, I think it may be more apt to say that some types of acts that are committed are state dependent, meaning that when that state is enabled and dissociation occurs, the acting out is involuntary. Anyone I think could be a killer, if prior dissociated trauma is stirred up under the right circumstances. I have seen a friend of mine fight like a ferocious tiger when she was on pain medication when she was being moved from the couch to the bed by a male friend of ours. She was out of it for the most part, and she's a teeny little thing, but was so strong in the resistance it took two of them to move her once that state was aroused. She had been raped and abused as a child, and evidently something got triggered.


I am not so sure karma has anything to do with it honestly.
 
Back
Top Bottom