Intelligence, Awareness and the Internal Compass

[BHelmet]

1 I think commitment to network is a better and more pure concept than submission to network. Submission to network could imply that if everyone in your network has the same subjective view of objective reality, then you should pay heed and even ignore any other inner input. Versus networking to hear other points of reference and then engaging your inner compass.

I see this as the ultimate-max internal considering. As for the aspect of WWJD or What did the C’s say; I see that as external consideration and having nothing to do with one’s inner essence/compass other than as having something to bounce off of as to test for an inner answer or impression.

As Hendrix said - I am the one who has to die when it’s my time to die… the C’s and your networks are not going to be there when it’s time for the life review and you look at what and why you chose what you chose.

So I see this as a question of simultaneous accessing our inner essence and some realm of higher consciousness for guidance. By doing so, I think that intensifies our lesson profile.

I suppose an individual could try to influence their own inner compass but then it wouldn’t be your inner compass would it? Or would it? Like trying to plaster affirmations over a negative subconscious program.

And that begs the question: are there times we should ignore the inner compass? Are their gradations to this compass? Is it the same as conscience?

Deep rabbit hole indeed.

 

[MatiaS]

I think commitment to network is a better and more pure concept than submission to network. Submission to network could imply that if everyone in your network has the same subjective view of objective reality, then you should pay heed and even ignore any other inner input. Versus networking to hear other points of reference and then engaging your inner compass.

I might have this wrong, but if I remember correctly Gurdjieff said that 'the school' (the network) and its members are interdependent to the extent that the "weakest link" in the school would keep everybody tied to his/her level of advancement.

I think submission would not mean to "yield to authority" or "give over power of authority" to the network. Rather to submit one's perspective to be reviewed by the network. To offer one's perspective, to submit it, and to get feedback from the network in order to locate one's blind spots.

We know of the power of the group-mind or mob-mind, and how strongly it can influence the individuals that find themselves in it. We probably can assume that there is a positive variant of this group-mind, that has its intentions rooted in STO-polarity and truth.

It's said we are ALWAYS under one influence or another (6D unified thought-forms/Names of God), so we should strive to let the STO thought-forms influence us.

We need to be determined enough (inner yearning for truth/god sparkle) to develop the will power/understanding to gravitate towards these influences, and simultaneously flexible enough to let that very influence guide us and trump our conditioned responses to situations.

But this is a continual process, and one must apply the knowledge acquired in one's life so that one's interaction with the 'consciousness of the field' provides feedback as to whether or not one is out in 'left field.' If one is in fact properly assimilating and applying knowledge, the outer reality begins to change leading to improved opportunities for further learning and application. Or so it seems to me. This is potentially a dynamic feed back system that gives both meaning and motivation if one can learn how to 'dance' for lack of a better word. There must however, be a willingness to discard assumptions and flexibility to adjust perspective. If you're here, (on the forum) you probably already experienced this and yes, it can be painful, especially at first. But it gets easier as long as one understands the nature of the process as continuous.

This ties perfectly in with the point I made above, and this is where Faith plays an essential part. In this 'dance', we must let DCM lead, unless DCM clearly gives us a situation where it's clear we should lead.

So to streamline this line of thought, most of us here have a higher-than-average motivation to find truth. This naturally has us posing questions to others, to hear what they know. Networks such as this one then form over time quite naturally as the FRV of Truth naturally conglomerates people together. Colinearity.

The network is part of the 'dance' I've quoted above. We go "out into the world" and apply what we've learned "in here" in the networking part. We carry a part of the network with us when we are out there on our individual journeys, in a way carrying the group-mind with us. Then we "report back"/submit our experiences for review here, to gain further understanding.

Perhaps our 3D network here is attempting to become a microcosmic version of the 6D unified thought-forms.

The network is like a liquid, where all of us are a small drop contributing to the whole. I'm thinking of Mercury, and how it's connected to communication. We can see ourselves objectively in the mirror of the network.

There's a vague idea in my mind about some alchemical process here. That the network can serve as something that pushes us to crystallize/harden a magnetic core. So that when we go outside the network to fulfill our individual missions, we are not like single drops of Mercury, but rather solid chunks of Gold, that radiate outward what the network has achieved together.

 

[ziutek]

I think the inner compass may have a lot to do with the essence of the soul, something given top-down to develop through consciousness combined with an intelligence that gives everything context.
Of course, I have no idea how our "self" occurs here. Is this "I" emanating from the soul essence or from universal consciousness.
There are, as you know, many concepts of souls ascending from matter to "Source" (1d to 7d) and descending from Source to matter (7d to 1d) in great cycles. Doesn't the internal compass play the role of a vector and determine in some way the choices made depending on which phase of the cycle the "I" manifested itself in?
Obviously during the "journey" to one side or the other of the cycle certain individuals become aware of their situation in different ways and the compass vector changes through conscious effort.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

[Cosmos]

This is a good point, an STO candidate could be someone with a very mundane existence, and perhaps not even inclined towards deciphering the secrets of the global situation, their STO traits could be expressed quite effectively in regular life, as the Work could be, maybe someone not very well educated or terribly intelligent, in the line of this thread, just someone with those traits about their being.

Indeed IMO!

I suppose the question would be, would an STO candidate be less prone to a high sense of ego that prevents him from seeing the truth because he/she would, in theory, be less focused on the self and thus less prone to seek to protect it? It's hard to tell, but it's a great question, and I'm not even sure it would be a good sign per se to identify one, as these traits could also describe a person with narcissistic wounds for instance.

Generally, one would assume that this should be the case but here again things could be very complex and different for each person. No one size fits it all, probably?

 

[Ben]

Generally, one would assume that this should be the case but here again things could be very complex and different for each person. No one size fits it all, probably?

I don't see how somebody who isn't making efforts to see reality objectively can be an STO candidate except in potential. I suppose if everything in their life fell in to place, they might be someone who comes to a place where they act selflessly without being susceptible to manipulation by others. Even so you would expect them to have blind spots where they would need help.

My understanding is that even as members of a group or network approach that level of common understanding, the 'esoteric circle', they retain parts of them which are of value. All have a unique essence as well as a unique set of maladaptive traits depending on their genetic makeup and life experience. Once the parts of them which are no longer useful have fallen away they may still be a very diverse set of people but with a common understanding. Enhancing each others strengths rather than compensating for weaknesses, so it's mutually beneficial.

 

[BHelmet]

Good point about always being under the influence of many and varied forces and ideas on the compass needle. That also makes it difficult to discern anything truly original. What if we are all just transducers of energies and not originators at all? Just walking down the buffet line picking and choosing. Which still does not explain why I have a predilection to choose bacon rather than liver no matter how nutritious they tell me liver is.

As for networking, good point. But Gurdjieff was talking about a formal network with commitments rules and a formal leader. This forum is not exactly that. It is more a loose conglomeration with certain boundaries and suggested behaviors. Like hanging out on a few dates vs a true marriage.

If we have an aim, perhaps that tunes the compass as it navigates in a random sea of contradictory influences. Maybe that is something.

 

[Kosma]

What if we are all just transducers of energies and not originators at all?

Similar suggestion was made by C's in 2015:

A: For all forum members: Do not lose heart. Just remember that if you do all you can, yourselves in the future will bridge the gap. You are all potential transducers of information into chaos. Let that information be love/truth. Goodbye.

 

[Joe]

What if we are all just transducers of energies and not originators at all?

It's my understanding that that is pretty much a given. There is "nothing new under the sun". All conscious beings are, in essence, vehicles for the expression of information of one kind of other, and information that already exists.

 

[Joe]

I suppose the question would be, would an STO candidate be less prone to a high sense of ego that prevents him from seeing the truth because he/she would, in theory, be less focused on the self and thus less prone to seek to protect it?

Probably, IMO, but that links back to what I said previously about STO, which I think comes from the Cs: that STO does not mean "good" it means sufficiently knowledgeable about the nature of reality that they at least seek to act in accordance with that knowledge. If a person understands enough about the nature of reality and the choices available, then it would not be in keeping with the understanding for them to consciously indulge a high sense of ego, although slipups would be par for the course.

By "protecting the self" above I assume you mean the ego, which is the most common ways that people seek to protect the self. Everyone is responsible, however, for protecting their physical vehicle.

 

[Joan]

Monist religions often identify the dualism as the main culprit of imperfect knowledge and suffering; their
solution is often to simply reverse the nature of things(alchemy) so that the division between subject and object dissolve in naked awareness. Daoist alchemy and Indian schools of Yoga do this. The Daoist Taijitu shows their conception of the creation of the world. European alchemy. The work of the Daoist alchemist yogi simply reverses this process, turns the tree upside down.

This reminds me of the image of Seahenge in the UK where an oak tree, was discovered in the sands, upside down, could such philosophical thought even exist at that time thousands of years ago? We are told not.

It’s a huge tree stump that was buried upside down with its roots upper most, and surrounding this tree stump were 55 timber posts, which had been cut from smaller oaks in the surrounding area.

It must be remembered, of course, that 4000 years ago Holme beach was a salt marsh, not a sandy beach. So it begs the question, how long this philosophical thought was in existence? And where and when it came from to traverse the millennia? Now incorporated into Daoist philosophy?

It’s a huge tree stump that was buried upside down with its roots upper most, and surrounding this tree stump were 55 timber posts, which had been cut from smaller oaks in the surrounding area.

It must be remembered, of course, that 4000 years ago Holme beach was a salt marsh, not a sandy beach.

Seahenge - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So is what we are experiencing, a debate about modern thought, how it relates to our life and times, and at the end of the discussion, will a consensus of truth be formed in the 3D word we are living in. Strikes me we could be left with the thought of divine inspiration, panspyhchism, the marriage of science and religion, and the rewiring of history, a new reality in which the peoples of the world live and think about the life and world in which they live.

So it also begs the question from me? Is what we are seeing presented before us, nothing more than a form of alchemy. the corruption of the divine creative energies of the universe. And some of the minds of men are attempting to use this energy to create their one world

Will continue to read this thread, apologies if this is preemptive, those are my immediate thoughts.

 

[Alejo]

By "protecting the self" above I assume you mean the ego, which is the most common ways that people seek to protect the self. Everyone is responsible, however, for protecting their physical vehicle.

yes, that right, I mean the ego that would get in the way of seeing oneself clearly. And I suppose that even physical protection, even if a part of it is instinctual, would also come from a different focus, there would be the self preservation aspect of it, but also, perhaps, the knowledge at some level that one's physical existence serves purposes other than perpetual self aggrandizement.

 

[Magnolia]

yes, that right, I mean the ego that would get in the way of seeing oneself clearly. And I suppose that even physical protection, even if a part of it is instinctual, would also come from a different focus, there would be the self preservation aspect of it, but also, perhaps, the knowledge at some level that one's physical existence serves purposes other than perpetual self aggrandizement.

I recall this passage from 2019 session:
Session 18 May 2019

A: It is not that those who endure to the end will be saved, but that those who endure to the end shall save others. It is your choice to be among those who choose to be a part of the vanguard of the new reality!!!

Goodbye.

(L) So that is basically being addressed to anybody who reads this session.

(Andromeda) It's not just surviving or enduring that's the point.

(L) It's to survive and serve others!

END OF SESSION

 

[Alejo]

I recall this passage from 2019 session:
Session 18 May 2019

A: It is not that those who endure to the end will be saved, but that those who endure to the end shall save others. It is your choice to be among those who choose to be a part of the vanguard of the new reality!!!

Goodbye.

(L) So that is basically being addressed to anybody who reads this session.

(Andromeda) It's not just surviving or enduring that's the point.

(L) It's to survive and serve others!

END OF SESSION

Good find, and this, in a very direct and simple way, is what Peterson meant, I think, when he spoke about meaning, it's what Frankl talked about when he said that one could find meaning.

Having that focus changes the entire prepping, surviving, remaining healthy and self preservation. Even if it might look the same superficially, it has an entire different orientation.

 

[BHelmet]

yes, that right, I mean the ego that would get in the way of seeing oneself clearly. And I suppose that even physical protection, even if a part of it is instinctual, would also come from a different focus, there would be the self preservation aspect of it, but also, perhaps, the knowledge at some level that one's physical existence serves purposes other than perpetual self aggrandizement.

Interesting thread. “Ego”. Didn’t we get this label/concept from Siggy Fried? Perhaps a questionable source? Does it even exist? (Was Freud a giant Hasnamuss?) If we are primarily transducers of information and energy then there might not be a point of reference like an ego. So I think self might be more of a field. But even that distinction might not matter much. You is what you is.

I recall the C’s saying self, spirit, and soul were all pretty much one and the same. I guess I am suggesting the ego is a mental construct. Perhaps a nonexistent concept of personhood. Another divide and conquer psychological differentiation.

So what is an inner compass? Does it access different levels of the human brain machine? And all of a sudden we are dissecting what the hell IS a human bean, anyway?

Welcome to the deep end.

 

[MatiaS]

I recall the C’s saying self, spirit, and soul were all pretty much one and the same. I guess I am suggesting the ego is a mental construct. Perhaps a nonexistent concept of personhood. Another divide and conquer psychological differentiation.

Ties into the 'many I's' concept. What we perceive of as "ourselves" is just a conglomeration of imprinting received in childhood, beliefs we've adopted before even being able to verbalize them, emotional hooks, preferences rooted in our bio- and neurochemistry etc..

I think there are actions we do which are based on more truer, more primordial instincts. We had a nice campfire conversation last night where we speculated over 'primal/archetypal' rituals.

For example 'breaking bread' together, to offer what you have to a stranger, hospitality. Sharing the fruits of our labor with another. Underlying this is some kind of intuitive STO understanding of giving freely to those who ask. The source of life is an infinite well of energy, so when we choose to be a radiator of that energy we harmonize our being with that Primordial Being which only gives, hence we never "run out" of energy to give. When we try to possess that energy in an egocentric way ala STS, we're not able to share it with others, because on some level we think if we give too much, we will "run out".

Also the campfire itself seems to carry a very primordial vibe to it. Gathering around the life giving (and life taking) fire, sharing it as a communal point of attention where we let our different bodies (centers) co-mingle with everyone else's around the fire.

These are rituals that must have existed since the "beginning of time" and I'm sure there are many other examples (dancing, singing etc.) of group activities, which when we perform them, we are able to tap into some ancestral undercurrent of energy that maybe can allow us to bridge all kinds of gaps of time and/or geography, perhaps accessing the Information Field where the original impulse of these rituals lies as a dormant blueprint, waiting to be activated.