Imitation Fourth Way Groups Started by Gurdjieff Rejects

[foofighter]

I wonder if I could even answer this? Is this perhaps a paradox? A circle with no end?

Good question. I really don't know. Perhaps it just "is what it is", and the only thing we can do is to choose. Either way, the Creator gets new experiences so from a universal perspective it doesn't matter.

But, are we allowed to put ourselves on the level of the Creator when making this choice? That is the question I think...

 

[PepperFritz]

Again, by the same logic, is it then appropriate for us to play "god" and say that this is all wrong and attempt to make it otherwise? Perhaps it is simply our fate to be controlled by the "moon", and that's all there is to it?

I think that Al has provided a clear answer to that question when he says:

I think I need to say that SOTT is OFFERING awareness, not pushing it. Nobody is being forced into Awareness. Free will still is held.

Free will is always key. The creators of SOTT and this Forum do not force anyone to read the material and information they offer. It is understood that those who choose to read it are free to consider it or reject it. It is also understood that those who participate on the Forum have chosen to do so, and to abide by its rules, and are free to go elsewhere if they are not comfortable with the awareness-raising purpose of the Forum.

Now, if you were to start pressuring, say, a friend or family member, to read this, that, and the other SOTT article or book, with the implication that they are in need (in your opinion) of becoming more aware, of being awakened -- without that person expressing the desire to be more aware, and especially if that person has asked that you NOT exert such pressure -- then I would say that YOU are using the SOTT as a tool to impose your will on another. The tool itself does not violate free will, only the person using the tool can do that. At least that is how I see it.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Steal the damn medicine. You guys are thinking too much.

 

[foofighter]

LOL, such a short answer and yet so much content!

Steal the damn medicine.

Exactly, that is obviously correct, but the only question is WHY?

You guys are thinking too much.

My point exactly! Conscience is best practiced by not thinking too much That would be an inappropriate use of centers.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Did Heinz interfere with what may have been one his wifes' exit points?

No, he didn't violate her free will. He stole the meds and she took them. He helped her to stay alive. Because if he had violated her exit point, then wouldn't all medications and all medical care always be doing that?

Maybe it was just here 'time' to die?

But how do you know if it is someone's time to die or not? If you can save someone from dying then it either wasn't their time, or you overpowered the universe's decision to kill them, or the "time to die" is open. And you could say that for absolutely anything you ever do. You can have a bagel in the morning and say "What if it wasn't my time to have a bagel?". Does such a question matter though? You had the bagel, that's all you know - you cannot know what the universe intends, you can only know what is or is not within your power to do, and why you do it. So personally I'd look at it from that perspective, and not attempt to guess what was or was not the "fated" outcome at that particular moment.

Maybe she was done here?

But you cannot know that. Either you ask that question for everything or for nothing. If you ask it for everything you cannot do anything at all for fear of doing something that wasn't fated. If you ask it for nothing, then you must have different criterea for making a decision to do something, osit.

Perhaps he was a little selfish in attempting to play god?

But who is to define what actions fall into the idea of "playing god" and which fall outside of this?

How about this: What should be, Will be, Eventually. No matter what Heinz does anyway...

Ok, but what if there is no such thing as "should"?

In letting her go, pain is part of life, and a lesson too...

Ok, but saving someone and helping life continue to live in the face of circumstances that threaten to destroy it - is that not also a lesson? The lesson could be that we're not alone in this universe, that we're in this situation together, and so there are others that care for us and can come to our rescue and help us just as we can help them in their time of need. Is that not what STO is all about - to realize that this is a group effort, that the point of life is for ALL not just for yourself.

Maybe all her life his wife denied the help of others and thought that she didn't need anyone, that she can do everything herself. The universe could easily be teaching her a lesson that nobody can make it alone in this universe, that's why the universe is full of life instead of just one being in an empty universe. And she could learn this meaningful lesson only by being saved by someone when she, for the "first time" in her life, could not save herself. It could be a good shock to her system, a realization that she depends on everyone else for her existence, that nobody can survive without others, and it's a dangerous illusion to hold.

Besides - what's a little broken glass worth? A life?

 

[Mr. Premise]

If you think that, AI, then the issue of intellectual property and conventional morality shouldn't make any difference. Then, even if the drug was legal and cheap would you still withhold it? You would be the one playing God. I say stick to what's close at hand and do what you can to help someone. Forget about what G. would call "morality" or what St. Paul would call "Law."

Should Heinz have done that?

NO.

Living within this grand illusion, perhaps we are here to experience, maybe learn some karmic lessons so as to move on to newer, grander experiences. Did Heinz interfere with what may have been one his wifes' exit points? Maybe it was just here 'time' to die? Maybe she was done here? Gone as far as she could go with what she was? Perhaps he was a little selfish in attempting to play god?
How about this: What should be, Will be, Eventually. No matter what Heinz does anyway...


edit: In letting her go, pain is part of life, and a lesson too...

 

[Mr. Premise]

I think the problem with the dilemma, is that it is Heinz's wife, and none of us know Heinz's wife. If it was OUR spouse, though...

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I think the problem with the dilemma, is that it is Heinz's wife, and none of us know Heinz's wife. If it was OUR spouse, though...

If my wife ran up and down a hospital dragging her tongue on the floor, and that is why she keeps getting sick, maybe I wouldn't steal medicine for her either as she's clearly in need of learning a totally different lesson like hospital floor=death. So yeah I'd say the devil is in the details, which we're not privy to.

 

[PepperFritz]

How about this: What should be, Will be, Eventually. No matter what Heinz does anyway....

This debate reminds me of an exchange between Laura and the C's, in which she laments her lack of 4th Density knowledge and therefore the ability to "get it", and the C's gently remind her that it is not necessary already BE in the 4th grade in order to go there (full excerpt below).

Seems to me that the Heinz scenario is not one that we as Third-Density STS entities have the capability to "know" the "answer" to. Because we are in the midst of the lesson, the choices that we make cannot be "right" or "wrong", because observing and learning from the outcomes of our decisions IS the lesson. Who's to say that Mr. Heinz does not make BOTH decisions, within different probabilities, and that the portion of him that sees and knows all probabilities gains his lesson from observing the outcomes and lessons involved in both scenarios.

In the end, the lessons must be learned and cannot be "skipped" by having ready-made formulas at one's fingertips. Or so I see it. I am reminded of the following excerpt from Ra:

We cannot offer shortcuts to enlightenment. Enlightenment is, of the moment, an opening to intelligent infinity. It can only be accomplished by the self, for the self. Another self cannot teach/learn enlightenment, but only teach/learn information, inspiration, or a sharing of love, of mystery, of the unknown that makes the other-self reach out and begin the seeking process that ends in a moment, but who can know when an entity will open the gate to the present?

.
-------------------------------------------
Exerpt from "Splitting Realities":

Q: (L) Well, how in the heck am I supposed to get there if I can't "get it?"
A: Who says you have to "get it" before you get there?
Q: (L) Well, that leads back to: what is the wave going to do to expand this awareness? Because, if the wave is what "gets you there," what makes this so?
A: No. It is like this: After you have completed all your lessons in "third grade," where do you go?
Q: (L) So, it is a question of...
A: Answer, please.
Q: (L) You go to fourth grade.
A: Okay, now, do you have to already be in 4th grade in order to be allowed to go there? Answer.
Q: (L) No. But you have to know all the 3rd density things...
A: Yes. More apropos: you have to have learned all of the lessons.
Q: (L) What kind of lessons are we talking about here?
A: Karmic and simple understandings.
Q: (L) What are the key elements of these understandings, and are they fairly universal?
A: They are universal.
Q: (L) What are they?
A: We cannot tell you that.
Q: (L) Do they have to do with discovering the MEANINGS of the symbology of 3rd density existence, seeing behind the veil... and reacting to things according to choice? Giving each thing or person or event its due?
A: Okay. But you cannot force the issue. When you have learned, you have learned!

 

[henry]

I agree with Don's remarks. Consider the following observation about conscience:

Lawrence Kohlberg, Harvard University. The Philosophy of Moral Development, 1981. Late 1960's. Research into the stages of development of moral reasoning. Using Heinz's Dilemma. He found three stages:

1. Premoral (ages 7 to 10) Defer to rules and adult authority based upon expectations of punishment and reward.

2. Conventional Level (beginning around 10) Behaviour guided by the opinions of others and the desire to conform. Obeying authority is a value in itself, without reference to punishment or reward or higher principle.

Here we can see how effective this is. Most people stay at this level. So if societal values become pathologic, then there is a profound inertia to keep it that way.

3. Post-conventional morality (During adolescence) Only 10% of the population (in the US in the 60's) attain this level. They formulate abstract moral principles and act according to conscience, not for approval from others or society. Reasoning is influenced by abstract and fluid concepts such as freedom, dignity, justice, and respect for life.

Think about the different levels of conscience and consider how this applies to Heinz's Dilemma.

 

[PepperFritz]

Are you suggesting that Heinz's decision to steal the drug would derive from #3, a "post-conventional morality", and that a decision to not steal the drug would derive from #2, a "conventional level" of morality? The problem, of course, is that one does not know enough about Heinz's motivations in making the decision to steal the drug. If it in fact is inspired by a genuinely altruistic desire to ease his wife's suffering and respect her quality of life, then, yes, that would derive from a "post-conventional morality". But what if Heinz's "desperation" is simply a selfish and childish inability to cope with what he sees as the "punishment" of "God" taking away his wife? What if he has an unhealthy relationship with his wife in which he views her as his ultimate "authority", and therefore considers it his "duty" to do whatever she requires of him?

All hypothetical, of course. But as many here like to say, the devil is in the details. I would suggest that every situation is unique, and the "morality" of a given action can only be assessed by knowing the detailed specifics of that situation and the individuals involved. And, of course, so much of the bigger picture of the soul lessons involved, etc. is unknowable at our level.

Lawrence Kohlberg, Harvard University. The Philosophy of Moral Development, 1981. Late 1960's. Research into the stages of development of moral reasoning. Using Heinz's Dilemma. He found three stages:

1. Premoral (ages 7 to 10) Defer to rules and adult authority based upon expectations of punishment and reward.

2. Conventional Level (beginning around 10) Behaviour guided by the opinions of others and the desire to conform. Obeying authority is a value in itself, without reference to punishment or reward or higher principle.

Here we can see how effective this is. Most people stay at this level. So if societal values become pathologic, then there is a profound inertia to keep it that way.

3. Post-conventional morality (During adolescence) Only 10% of the population (in the US in the 60's) attain this level. They formulate abstract moral principles and act according to conscience, not for approval from others or society. Reasoning is influenced by abstract and fluid concepts such as freedom, dignity, justice, and respect for life.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Thanks for the quote Henry. Dabrowski made this concept the backbone of his theory, and he goes to great lengths to describe the different levels of morality/conscience/empathy. The lower levels are governed by biology first, then environment (opinion of others). Higher levels are based on autonomy and empathy. "We see also a transition from impulsive, reflexive syntony as a function of temperament and mood of the moment, to reflective syntony, that is, empathy." ("Temperamental syntony. Superficial, easy, and immediately expressed feeling of commonality with others. Group feelings of doing things together, such as athletics, dances, drinking, brawls, or union strikes and wars. Temperamental syntony is governed by the mood of the moment and absence of conflict of interest. When such conflict appears feelings of kinship are replaced by aggression.")

Lawrence Kohlberg, Harvard University. The Philosophy of Moral Development, 1981. Late 1960's. Research into the stages of development of moral reasoning. Using Heinz's Dilemma. He found three stages:

1. Premoral (ages 7 to 10) Defer to rules and adult authority based upon expectations of punishment and reward.

2. Conventional Level (beginning around 10) Behaviour guided by the opinions of others and the desire to conform. Obeying authority is a value in itself, without reference to punishment or reward or higher principle.

Here we can see how effective this is. Most people stay at this level. So if societal values become pathologic, then there is a profound inertia to keep it that way.

3. Post-conventional morality (During adolescence) Only 10% of the population (in the US in the 60's) attain this level. They formulate abstract moral principles and act according to conscience, not for approval from others or society. Reasoning is influenced by abstract and fluid concepts such as freedom, dignity, justice, and respect for life.

The authors of "Psychopath: Emotion and the brain" quote a study that shows that the testing for post-conventional morality (note: I'll have to double check that it is Kohlberg they are criticizing, as I don't have the book with me) does not account for socio-economic status, and they believe that people with a high SEC learn the right way to answer the test, and that they do not necessarily have a higher level of empathy. I think this is partially true. A higher SEC will both nurture a higher level of empathy, and teach better "words" to go with a lower level of conscience (for example, a subclinical psychopath will probably sound very moral when answering this test, if he knows what he's supposed to sound like).

That being said, while the tests may not be totally accurate, there is definitely a multilevelness to empathy. Here's an excerpt from Dabrowski:

Syntony in its simplest form can be described as tuning in with others. In its most evolved form it becomes reflective empathy with a wide range of multilevel concerns for others. The gradient of syntony is a very sensitive gauge of developmental level, and it is, perhaps, easier to measure than the gradient of reflection or hierarchization.

At the lowest level syntony is limited to a group feeling engendered by participation in common activities, by belonging to a certain class, team or ethnic group. Such syntony is external, superficial and temperamental, it ceases as soon as there is a conflict of interest.

In level II syntonic feelings begin to fluctuate but with the changing moods and instability of one’s own identity a psychological need for the company of other people and their opinions and feelings begins to appear. The essential difference with level I is the feeling for others extending beyond common activities. Occasionally there may arise, for a brief period, an empathic concern for another person. But it is not until the beginning of multilevel disintegration that syntony as a superficial temperamental feeling disappears to be replaced by empathy and related feelings of exclusivity of relationships, of respect and concern for others as persons, of acceptance of others in their subjectivity and individuality leading to a sense of responsibility in relations with others.

Empathy is thus possible only with the emergence of the multilevel split between “what is” and “what ought to be” because it brings about an emotional evaluation of one’s relation to others and of their role and participation in one’s development. It is now that caring (Mayeroff, 1971) enters into relations with others -- a relationship with another person becomes a true relationship because a chance meeting is replaced by an encounter. Further development transforms empathy into a greater concern for others in their development, for being of help to them and for protecting those who suffer.

Growth of empathy is one of the most powerful developmental dynamics and one which most clearly shows the progressive and hard won change from narrow egocentrism to an all-encompassing universal love. Empathy grows out of the strong emotions of search for the meaning of life and finding it in concern and service to others, and out of the need for self-perfection as a human being. Self-perfection is not possible in a vacuum but grows out of a sense of relatedness with others measured in terms of an ‘ideal other’ embodied in one’s personality ideal. It grows out of conflicts with oneself which produce an increase in caring and appreciation of others, and a deeper humility within oneself.

 

[CarpeDiem]

in this situation i would do a single essential thing: shut up my cartesian monkey mind and listen to my heart. I will not think about details, about
how moral or 'unmoral' i am acting, how Gurdjieffian or not, i will just listen to my heart. Getta il tuo cuore e vai a cercarlo!

 

[Beau]

All hypothetical, of course. But as many here like to say, the devil is in the details. I would suggest that every situation is unique, and the "morality" of a given action can only be assessed by knowing the detailed specifics of that situation and the individuals involved. And, of course, so much of the bigger picture of the soul lessons involved, etc. is unknowable at our level.

Well, the whole point of the exercise is to see what YOU would do if you were in Heinz's dilemma. You don't need to project a dozen different motivations onto Heinz, just answer the question.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I see another problem with using the Heinz dilemma, and similar self-report tests, to judge level of conscience: it does not take hypocrisy into account. What people say they will do, or even genuinely think they will do, is often different than what they will do in the real situation. A person who thinks highly of themselves and their morality can easily speak in the highest terms of love and doing anything for a partner, and yet react like a psychopath to her real suffering, thinking only of himself. And conversely, a person who says, "stealing is wrong so I wouldn't do it", when in such a situation, may break free of their cultural programming and show true autonomy. This ties in with the SEC factor I mentioned above. Probably the best method would be to study a person's real history, in real situations. Objective tests of emotional level would be a better indicator of empathy.