psychegram
The Living Force
Yep, same. There was never any question. It was an instinctive awareness.
Intelligence, Awareness and the Internal Compass
- Thread starter Eulenspiegel
- Start date
Firstly, on my timeline Tami Peterson did not die, she survived.
I’ve thought about this also , and my observations are highly intelligent people or academics do not necessarily have the ability to assimilate an understanding of a complex reality. It appears to me to be the difference between 3rd density and 4th density thinking. When you “SEE” the big picture you are assimilating deeper layers of understanding of how the world works rather than just looking at the information as it is presented and putting together a 3d puzzle.Perhaps some people are just not capable of seeing?
“There are those that see, those that see when they are shown, and those that will never see.”
(Some Russian author, not Leonardio da Vinci. The quote is often mistakenly attributed.)
“There are those that see, those that see when they are shown, and those that will never see.”
(Some Russian author, not Leonardio da Vinci. The quote is often mistakenly attributed.)
This is a very pertinent question,
What I have observed is that first.. one requires more than brilliance to navigate life, and second intelligence is not synonymous with wisdom. Wisdom requires pain, the pain that comes from admitting to one's ability and indeed almost by default state of being wrong.
I have seen a lot of really intelligent individuals defend their ideological positions with eloquent, and sometimes violent, ways. And that has always made me wonder. How can someone be capable of brilliant thought, and eloquent speech, and yet not be willing to face up to the fact of being wrong?
And I think that's perhaps part of the clue, willingness.
I remember watching a video of a linguist about a year ago, and she was discussing the Covid narrative. And what she said was a huge piece of the puzzle I thought. She was describing how the language used to sell the narrative was designed to penetrate deeper in peoples psyches, almost to the level of their identities.
"I am a good person, therefore I do not wish anyone to die, therefore I wouldn't put anyone at risk, therefore I am wearing my mask because I am a good person"... more or less.
And that's what made me consider that some of these intelligent individuals, may have built into themselves pieces of information and narratives as part of their identity, and that is a place that their intelligence will never be able to challenge without them being willing to do so. Specially if that intelligence is working with the prime directive, let's call it, of survival and protecting said identity, which would include writing complex protective narratives to explain away ones conclusions about reality.
And one has to be familiar with certain cognitive science and even esoteric principles to even begin to consider undergoing something like self work. And eve if one was, if their current self is showing sings of success, then most people would have no reason to question themselves at all.
I hope the above made sense, I think people's intelligence (as any other part of their being) has a default program of protecting the integrity of the identity, which is the origin of cognitive dissonance. And that identity includes former conclusions about reality, and as such those are protected and no amount of new information will do the trick, UNLESS the person is already questioning it's perception.
But without that one tiny, or huge, ingredient of the willingness to question, no amount of arguing or data will effect any change.
So, in the end, it comes down to a choice and will I suppose. Perhaps some of these brilliant individuals haven't changed their minds because they haven't chosen to do so. And knowing how the human psyche works, and the need to protect the identity, it's highly unlikely that it'll happen by accident.
my two cents.
What I have observed is that first.. one requires more than brilliance to navigate life, and second intelligence is not synonymous with wisdom. Wisdom requires pain, the pain that comes from admitting to one's ability and indeed almost by default state of being wrong.
I have seen a lot of really intelligent individuals defend their ideological positions with eloquent, and sometimes violent, ways. And that has always made me wonder. How can someone be capable of brilliant thought, and eloquent speech, and yet not be willing to face up to the fact of being wrong?
And I think that's perhaps part of the clue, willingness.
I remember watching a video of a linguist about a year ago, and she was discussing the Covid narrative. And what she said was a huge piece of the puzzle I thought. She was describing how the language used to sell the narrative was designed to penetrate deeper in peoples psyches, almost to the level of their identities.
"I am a good person, therefore I do not wish anyone to die, therefore I wouldn't put anyone at risk, therefore I am wearing my mask because I am a good person"... more or less.
And that's what made me consider that some of these intelligent individuals, may have built into themselves pieces of information and narratives as part of their identity, and that is a place that their intelligence will never be able to challenge without them being willing to do so. Specially if that intelligence is working with the prime directive, let's call it, of survival and protecting said identity, which would include writing complex protective narratives to explain away ones conclusions about reality.
And one has to be familiar with certain cognitive science and even esoteric principles to even begin to consider undergoing something like self work. And eve if one was, if their current self is showing sings of success, then most people would have no reason to question themselves at all.
I hope the above made sense, I think people's intelligence (as any other part of their being) has a default program of protecting the integrity of the identity, which is the origin of cognitive dissonance. And that identity includes former conclusions about reality, and as such those are protected and no amount of new information will do the trick, UNLESS the person is already questioning it's perception.
But without that one tiny, or huge, ingredient of the willingness to question, no amount of arguing or data will effect any change.
So, in the end, it comes down to a choice and will I suppose. Perhaps some of these brilliant individuals haven't changed their minds because they haven't chosen to do so. And knowing how the human psyche works, and the need to protect the identity, it's highly unlikely that it'll happen by accident.
my two cents.
Thanks for starting this discussion. As with others, I've often mulled over this topic.
One thing I'd like to add, that became pretty clear during the Covid saga, is that academics and other highly educated people have great resistance to the idea that they are being manipulated with propaganda and hypnotizing techniques. I'd guess that because of their feeling of being well educated (which they are, in their own field), they feel confident that they wouldn't be affected by such nonsense. They can spot 'Russian propaganda' miles away! However, as we've learned, many governments (especially in the UK) have invested heavily in behavioral scinece groups that have carefully crafted language, terms, messaging, and imagery that is designed to manipulate especially the 'middle class' and the 'intellectuals' because of their influence and positions.
An example of this might be (based loosely on what I've noticed) that some academic guy thinks that since he reads all the news papers very carefully every day (because he's such a good reader!), he's up to speed, and knows very well what's goingo on. Never suspecting that the news papers brainwash him every day...
One thing I'd like to add, that became pretty clear during the Covid saga, is that academics and other highly educated people have great resistance to the idea that they are being manipulated with propaganda and hypnotizing techniques. I'd guess that because of their feeling of being well educated (which they are, in their own field), they feel confident that they wouldn't be affected by such nonsense. They can spot 'Russian propaganda' miles away! However, as we've learned, many governments (especially in the UK) have invested heavily in behavioral scinece groups that have carefully crafted language, terms, messaging, and imagery that is designed to manipulate especially the 'middle class' and the 'intellectuals' because of their influence and positions.
An example of this might be (based loosely on what I've noticed) that some academic guy thinks that since he reads all the news papers very carefully every day (because he's such a good reader!), he's up to speed, and knows very well what's goingo on. Never suspecting that the news papers brainwash him every day...
MatiaS
Jedi
This is a very interesting conversation. Reading through the first posts yesterday some ideas came to me and I now see that the newer posts largely describe the ideas forming in my own mind.
Every program we are exposed to through the Predator's Mind serves its purpose by giving just enough truth and seeming validity to make us complacent and accepting of whatever internal or external narrative that program feeds us, but because of the mechanical nature of these programs they ultimately only keep us in the same place, keeping focus strictly within the defined 'safe' parameters of matter/physicality.
The academic or highly intellectual mind, in a sense could be seen as a successful product of the Matrix, where it converts a person with high intellectual capacity into serving itself (the Matrix). If 'emotional man' gets neutralized by giving him shallow, emotionally loaded entertainment and petty human dramas, then 'intellectual man' gets neutralized by the academic arena, where they are free to use their intellectual capacity, but only within the preconceived limits of what is 'acceptable'.
This then creates a dynamic where the intellectual has a high drive to contribute something to his field, yet at the same time knowing that going too far out of the box is a big no-no, as there are already in place certain guidelines or parameters which are not to be crossed, i.e. paranormal studies, conspiracy theories etc.. Thus the efforts (sometimes super efforts) of these individuals, no matter how well-intentioned, just end up solidifying the status quo, because they are deterred from making waves that are seen as 'too out there'.
If we conceptualize of the Matrix Control System as a kind of semi-conscious entity of its own, looking to survive and perpetuate its existence, having its 'roots' in 4th density with branches of control reaching down to 3rd density, it would make sense that all of 3rd density (as long as it's only taken at face value) is set up as a web/labyrinth of compartmentalized distractions and half-truths which keeps any potential seeker running in circles as long as they don't expand their thinking to include influences beyond the directly tangible ones.
Every program we are exposed to through the Predator's Mind serves its purpose by giving just enough truth and seeming validity to make us complacent and accepting of whatever internal or external narrative that program feeds us, but because of the mechanical nature of these programs they ultimately only keep us in the same place, keeping focus strictly within the defined 'safe' parameters of matter/physicality.
The academic or highly intellectual mind, in a sense could be seen as a successful product of the Matrix, where it converts a person with high intellectual capacity into serving itself (the Matrix). If 'emotional man' gets neutralized by giving him shallow, emotionally loaded entertainment and petty human dramas, then 'intellectual man' gets neutralized by the academic arena, where they are free to use their intellectual capacity, but only within the preconceived limits of what is 'acceptable'.
This is what I'm getting at, only with slightly different wording. The overemphasis on especially physicality (3rd density) from the get-go puts big limits on how far these minds allow themselves to reach. I haven't been anywhere close to any contact with academia but from what I've understood by reading and talking to people, is that there's much incentive to be original and 'trailblazing', although at the same time academic group-think really seems to be a major factor also.
This then creates a dynamic where the intellectual has a high drive to contribute something to his field, yet at the same time knowing that going too far out of the box is a big no-no, as there are already in place certain guidelines or parameters which are not to be crossed, i.e. paranormal studies, conspiracy theories etc.. Thus the efforts (sometimes super efforts) of these individuals, no matter how well-intentioned, just end up solidifying the status quo, because they are deterred from making waves that are seen as 'too out there'.
Again, it's the built in survival mechanism of the Predator's Mind that hinders these people from admitting they could be at fault. I think we can not underestimate the willingness of the Matrix to perpetuate itself, and how readily that is visible in our very own minds.
And in order to get to a point of willingness to change/question, shocks of worldview shattering proportions need to be administered, which of course unfortunately kicks the programming into overdrive to retain the status quo.
Very much this. I think somehow academia by itself is a big sacred cow with many subsidiary sacred cows under it, and thus anyone who strongly identifies with being part of the "upper class"/intellectual elite very much integrates and internalizes this sacred cow into their own identity. I would guess they see themselves "above" things such as propaganda and/or hypnotizing techniques.
This summarizes nicely the main point I'm trying to make here; that academia is doing exactly what it's supposed to do; give just enough truth and validity to keep the show going, but not quite enough to let people see too far. To see more, one has to venture beyond the accepted narratives, but in academic circles this is hard, if not impossible to do. Going too far outside the box can mean career and/or social suicide.
To add another aspect: McGilchrist has an interesting take on truth which goes well with my experience: we often assume that truth is compelling, and that it automatically convinces people just because it's true. But we all know it doesn't work that way. McGilchrist puts it like this: truth is something that we are attracted to, not something we are pushed towards by "facts". In other words, we actively orient ourselves towards truth, instead of being "convinced" by the facts.
For that to happen, you must be "tuned in" somehow and become an active truth seeker. You really must love truth more than your own preconceived notions, temperament, biases etc. (it's often easy to point the finger and see others failing in that, but the real test is to recognize our misconceptions and then go beyond them for the love of truth.)
I think in some sense relativism is true: you can always look at the "facts" in different ways, and it's more a matter of turning one's attention to specific, overall "modes of thought" because we are attracted by them. "The Truth" is not really out there, but we can align ourselves with "truth energy", if we can handle the pain that this entails. Those who align themselves with different energies cannot be convinced by our truth energy-fueled arguments, because they run on a different fuel.
Academics today has little or nothing to do with "truth seeking", it's largely a technocratic enterprise where small details are discussed within a very rigid framework that can't be questioned. Most academics are more like lab technicians or librarians or administrators than truth seekers. There is still value in this sort of activity, because details do matter. But at this point, anyone who is interested in big questions, in new paradigms, and in uncompromising truth seeking will probably avoid an academic career. (I think there are still exceptions and niches where this is less true though, so we can't generalize.)
For that to happen, you must be "tuned in" somehow and become an active truth seeker. You really must love truth more than your own preconceived notions, temperament, biases etc. (it's often easy to point the finger and see others failing in that, but the real test is to recognize our misconceptions and then go beyond them for the love of truth.)
I think in some sense relativism is true: you can always look at the "facts" in different ways, and it's more a matter of turning one's attention to specific, overall "modes of thought" because we are attracted by them. "The Truth" is not really out there, but we can align ourselves with "truth energy", if we can handle the pain that this entails. Those who align themselves with different energies cannot be convinced by our truth energy-fueled arguments, because they run on a different fuel.
Academics today has little or nothing to do with "truth seeking", it's largely a technocratic enterprise where small details are discussed within a very rigid framework that can't be questioned. Most academics are more like lab technicians or librarians or administrators than truth seekers. There is still value in this sort of activity, because details do matter. But at this point, anyone who is interested in big questions, in new paradigms, and in uncompromising truth seeking will probably avoid an academic career. (I think there are still exceptions and niches where this is less true though, so we can't generalize.)
I've seen a few of these sorts of conversations take place on the Forum over time, and to me, the search for some kind of essential "element" of truth recognition or awareness expansion in the human psyche is usually rooted in a political concern about what might happen to the larger world of "academia" if some such "element" virally spread throughout the ivory towers creating a general realignment of their purpose towards actual Science.
There's a reason, I think, that Gurdjieff's "third force" or Dabrowski's "third factor" and so on and so forth are described in such vague terms. It's because they essentially describe Free Will, a concept greeted with distaste in certain academic, philosophical and even occult circles. But for those who embrace the idea of Free Will, who honour and respect, even love them, the concept needs no explanation, because asking to explain Free Will is like asking why thought or life exists - it's an abstract, artificial question that is impossible to answer and has no relevance to any reality at all.
So I agree with what you wrote about the "truth energy", @luc - it really is about the sort of "fuel" a soul chooses to fly on.
Indeed, it takes a certain "internal fortitude" and a particular type of stress resistance to consistently seek the truth and see it for what it is when it is uncovered. As noted in a recent session, most people don't tolerate stress very well, and seek different types of "comfortable narratives" to reduce that stress. All the grey matter and book learning in the universe will do nothing to help a person see the truth in a situation where their fundamental internal makeup demands that they choose the comfortable narrative as a matter of existential self-preservation.
That's the problem with the materialist paradigm. It allows for nothing higher than, or above, human beings. If a person believes themselves or the collective of human beings and their acquired knowledge as the epitome of available knowledge and therefore truth, they will never question their own 'truth' or the collective musings of the 'experts' from which they derive their own truth.
The ironic thing is that, in the scenario where human beings get their ideas from the "information field" and, depending on the person, from particular "parts" of it, all of their "truths" are coming from a 'higher' source anyway, but humans are just completely unaware of it and insist it is the product of their own inquiry. That's a great setup to keep people ignorant and enslaved.
Last edited:
For me, this internal fortitude is greatly increased by the perspective that suffering the loss of illusions has meaning.
I'm reminded of the studies mentioned in 'Strangers to Ourselves' where people who had lost loved ones returned to a baseline level of happiness surprisingly quickly if they had a belief that their suffering holds some meaning (or if they believed in God, which I would suggest is much the same thing). Those who did not have this perspective remained in a state of grief much longer, because they were more likely to dwell on the misfortune and feel 'wronged' by the world.
It's difficult to imagine what my internal state right now would be like without the perspective gained from esoteric material, but I don't think it would be pretty.
I'm reminded of the studies mentioned in 'Strangers to Ourselves' where people who had lost loved ones returned to a baseline level of happiness surprisingly quickly if they had a belief that their suffering holds some meaning (or if they believed in God, which I would suggest is much the same thing). Those who did not have this perspective remained in a state of grief much longer, because they were more likely to dwell on the misfortune and feel 'wronged' by the world.
It's difficult to imagine what my internal state right now would be like without the perspective gained from esoteric material, but I don't think it would be pretty.
True, it hooks itself into something that lies within us, that wasn't created by the Matrix, that resonates with this self preserving drive.
Yep, I don't think an accidental event or even a purposefully administered set of shocks can get anyone to a point where they question their own minds and worldview. I think an individual must have reached that point where questioning themselves for the sake of truth, in order to make use of a worldview shattering event.
Which is the other aspect of this discussion, there's also the factor of people's own path and development, some individuals are in their learning path and at the point where they are, questioning themselves isn't part of their "lesson plan", they've got their own lessons tied to their lives which might not require them to undertake the Work a la gurdjieff.
MatiaS
Jedi
It occurs to me now that somehow the "Matrix mindset" (subjective view of reality) in a weird and skewed way mirrors what perceiving objective reality must be like.
If and when we get to a point where we truly can perceive objective reality as it is, our need for questioning what we are seeing should come to an end. We would look at reality, and know, beyond any doubts that what we are seeing is what actually is. I don't believe the C's from their vantage point look at reality and say "hmm, I wonder if it actually is like that". Instead, after having reached a certain point of development, you simply see and know without having to ask questions.
This is quite similar to how the mind that has had its' programming complete perceives reality, not questioning it, but rather seeing what it wants to see (or what 4DSTS wants it to see), all the while confabulating whatever backstory or narrative that seems to fit to the topic at hand. It feels safe and reassuring for the mind to say "I know". To this mind, it doesn't think it "sees only what it wants to see", it wholeheartedly believes it sees things as they truly are.
It's a somehow beautiful yet horrifying thing to contemplate, that somehow the controllers have convinced us through all the terrestrial and hyperdimensional means available to them, to actually look at Black, and say with complete unwavering conviction that what we see is White.
If and when we get to a point where we truly can perceive objective reality as it is, our need for questioning what we are seeing should come to an end. We would look at reality, and know, beyond any doubts that what we are seeing is what actually is. I don't believe the C's from their vantage point look at reality and say "hmm, I wonder if it actually is like that". Instead, after having reached a certain point of development, you simply see and know without having to ask questions.
This is quite similar to how the mind that has had its' programming complete perceives reality, not questioning it, but rather seeing what it wants to see (or what 4DSTS wants it to see), all the while confabulating whatever backstory or narrative that seems to fit to the topic at hand. It feels safe and reassuring for the mind to say "I know". To this mind, it doesn't think it "sees only what it wants to see", it wholeheartedly believes it sees things as they truly are.
It's a somehow beautiful yet horrifying thing to contemplate, that somehow the controllers have convinced us through all the terrestrial and hyperdimensional means available to them, to actually look at Black, and say with complete unwavering conviction that what we see is White.
The belief that the controllers of this world are omnipotent and infallible beings is an excellent example of this.
I see it a bit differently actually, though I could be wrong.
But I think that seeing reality as objectively as possible requires a conscious effort to question it and to see it, much like it happens down here, and since as above so below, I daresay that it's a continual effort to not fall into complacency, however tempting.
I will say that, as with any effort, with practice it becomes less and less painful to undertake, until it becomes part of who one is, but the choice needs to be made every time. Because there's a 4D STS which means that there's a level of existence with far more awareness than we have of reality and its workings, but as we have discussed in this thread, intelligence and awareness for that matter, do not imply wisdom or the choice of questioning oneself.
