Introduction

Ahhh! I understand what truth seeker is saying about identification now... This is something new to me eventhough I have read ISOTM. I get overcome with something I forget the wider picture. That is identification, in this case for me is, victimhood.

Seeing it this way is new to me.
 
luke wilson said:
Ahhh! I understand what truth seeker is saying about identification now... This is something new to me eventhough I have read ISOTM. I get overcome with something I forget the wider picture. That is identification, in this case for me is, victimhood.

Seeing it this way is new to me.

It would be helpful, luke, if you would slow down on your posting. That way, you will stop posting your immediate thoughts, which then change within minutes, causing you to post again immediately with something else. Not everything that crosses your mind needs to be posted on the forum. This will be externally considerate of you and allow you to practice some control over yourself.
 
luke wilson said:
I don't think identification is that bad. Without identification one can't hold himself in one place. The only reason I can perceive anything around me through my senses is because my senses identify with the stimuli, like light, touch, sound etc. Laura got where she is because she is identified to seeking truth...

Maybe I don't understand what you mean?
See Ana's post above.

Also, see this page:

http://cassiopedia.org/glossary/Identification

What you stated in your post wasn't about soul questing but rather it was reaction from you stemming from your childhood wounds. We have all felt or have been victimized at one point or another. There comes a time however, when the choice to stop viewing ourselves as such or continue to enjoy our suffering must be made.

lw said:
Anyways, now I find myself in a labyrinth that I don't want to be in. So apologies for taking this off-topic.
This is what identification does, see? Because you had a reaction to responses given, you unconsciously set the stage for your own worst fears to be realized. In this instance, you created the labyrinth - the one handed down to you from past wounding. I realize this is difficult as we all have gone through this. Basically what I'm saying is to keep working at becoming conscious of your reactions while you are having them. It's not easy which is why it's called the work. If you haven't already, I would suggest that you become acquainted with the dietary threads and start journaling.

Added: Just saw your recent posts, lw and am glad you understood me. :) I agree with anart that you may want to slow down with the posting.
 
Happyville said:
I agree that a pissing match about the 10,000 words and the endless sidebars - currently seems fruitless!

I do not think there are any pissing matches going about here. Differences in points of view are being discussed. You have made some accusations against the forum that are serious in nature. Would you care to back those up with concrete examples?
 
obyvatel said:
MoskoeOne said:
...The balance is always between individual predatory behaviour, and collective predatory behaviour...
I do not understand the above statement. Can you please clarify?

MoskoeOne said:
I'll use the example of emotional predator:

- An emotional predator tends to rely on certain societal norms and expectations, which have come out of collective habits and different relational structures. They (usually in a very subtle manner), go about putting you in situations where you would like to violate these norms.

- If you do, they attempt to collect these instances as currency, where you 'owe' them something in return (usually an emotional perspective toward them expressed through words or action). If you don't they have found a way to control your behaviour.

A group can actually create certain norms and expectations (again usually very subtle ones) in order to regulate its environment. These norms can favour the emotional nourishment of a select committed number in the group,- just one (in the instance of just one it leaves itself open to the accusation of cult-ishness), or it can favour non-committed members (which leaves itself open to its emotional resources being used up by new-comers.)

-emotional interchanges are an inevitable part of human interaction so emotional predator is a subjective term, and these things do effect different people to more and lesser degrees as they are interchanges which are monitered by the intellect.
-The example of balance in this case, is whether or not the freedom exists to discuss whatever material is desired to be discussed, which hasn't been challenged, but that is one factor of the context of the request for a blog link to the 100,000 words by Domwatts.


Thank you for the clarification MoskoeOne. It would seem from the above that your view is that there has been a bias towards collective predatory behavior as far as the forum is concerned.

It appears that you may not have read or understood the basic principles upon which this network has been set up. Here we favor objectivity and scientific principles of research - not experiences or specific members. Perhaps re-reading forum guidelines and some important threads linked in the newbies board may be of value. You could also evaluate whether those principles and how things are done here agree with your views of how things should be.
 
domwatts23 said:
Gonzo, would you say that, as RedHawk says in his incredible book 'Self Observation', the simple act of observing our mechanical reactions (repeatedly) serves to eradicate those which are of no use?

Specifically, I refer to those which you have stated come from childhood, as I can see a lot of truth in your assessment when I think about my past.

I do not mean this to be a generic question about how to get rid of programs, as I am aware this is a question which is tackled extensively elsewhere on the forum, rather I am asking if there is anything specific to know which can be of use regarding these 'long term programs' shall we say.

Thanks again
Pashailis' response pretty much covered it. As you noted, dealing with programs is discussed in several places on the forum. I believe observation is the first part of eradicating programs, but speaking for myself, I cannot stress enough how complex the whole idea of observing and eliminating programs can be. So, here's a few thoughts you may find useful.

Programs, or buffers, require detached observation to recognize:
- how they operate (how they are triggered, the effect they have on both us and our environment, the reward we get from them, etc.), and
- their specific source (e.g.. father's constant criticism that leads to the child in a constant effort to seek the father's approval or the approval of those who remind the adult child of the father, which eventually becomes pattern behaviour of always trying to prove oneself)

In practice, observation can have many facets, including taking note of physical sensations, thought processes, emotions, when a program is invoked. I have found that it is useful to start small in the initial efforts, choosing one or two elements to scan for and then adding more with each subsequent encounter with a specific program. Since we can't necessarily predict when a program will get triggered, I sometimes intentionally would put myself in a situation that would undoubtedly trigger the program. This way, I could be prepared to engage the various aspects of observation in a more controlled, less ad hoc manner. The more I learn about psychology and the 4th way, the more I adjust my approach. Ultimately, observation is part of a feedback loop, initially for identification, but as one goes along, it becomes a way of testing the success of various tweaks or approaches. I consider it the feedback loop used in continuous improvement systems where the observation results become the data by which enhancements are verified.

Much like how things are done in the product or software development worlds, large changes can often result in new problems - by fixing one defect, several others may be created. Therefore, it makes sense to make small, incremental changes and measure (observe) as you go.

Once a program has been identified and understood, a plan is required to deal with it. But to have any success in such an endeavour, one needs to recognize the limitations of working alone. Our mind is too tainted with our filters and perceptions, it is too subjective to assess itself objectively - we can't think about the way we think with the way we think. We require mirrors, a variety of input from a collinear network of trusted individuals working together to provide such mutual support. This forum is set up along the lines of a Gurdjieffian 4th way school and such support is a fundamental aspect of the Work. It is part of the cleaning of the machine.

Since a deep understanding of psychology and Gurdjieffian principles are required to deal with programs, the recommended reading list is an indispensable resource - http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4718.0

Hope that helps,
Gonzo
 
QUOTE from Truth Seeker:
Perhaps that's the real issue? When we become identified with anything, it keeps us living in illusion and unable to see the crux of the matter. Because of your identification with past wounds that have been afflicted through your own past, you view the world in black and white terms - persecuted and persecutor. The inability to discern - in this case to always see yourself as the victim - is a refusal to take responsibility for your own past and current thinking that keeps you there. This denial of responsibility also keeps you comfortable as it reflects your own upbringing and the mechanisms developed that helped a small child survive. The problem comes when one grows up and finds that those same mechanisms no longer work yet are applied - projected - onto any situation that allows you to continue playing the role of victim. This keeps one chasing their tail so to speak. This can also be applied to experiences relating to high strangeness.

Yes this sure seems to be happening in the Jean and Marie situation on SOTT right now.
 
obyvatel said:
Thank you for the clarification MoskoeOne. It would seem from the above that your view is that there has been a bias towards collective predatory behavior as far as the forum is concerned.
No, that is just the balance thats always considered by the intellect.

obyvatel said:
It appears that you may not have read or understood the basic principles upon which this network has been set up. Here we favor objectivity and scientific principles of research - not experiences or specific members. Perhaps re-reading forum guidelines and some important threads linked in the newbies board may be of value. You could also evaluate whether those principles and how things are done here agree with your views of how things should be.
No,- The issue is one of suppression of content, which hasn't occured.

Laura said:
No, because it gives a whole slew of examples of how "paranormal" or "mystical" experiences are used by hyperdimensional predators to vector people.
Indeed. I wouldn't take the experience in question here as neccessarily "paranormal" or "mystical". More to the point what is the significance of its label? All possibilties including characterisations of predators are considered for every aspect of existence.

Laura said:
I think that what has gotten lost here is that we are trying to convey that "experiences" aren't what it is all about.
It hasn't been lost.

Al Today said:
No, methinks we are not equal.
the relevance/importance of this is?


Mod edit to clarify quotation boxes.
 
obyvatel said:
I do not think there are any pissing matches going about here. Differences in points of view are being discussed. You have made some accusations against the forum that are serious in nature.
Sorry... let me rephrase for clarity.

" I agree that a pissing match differing points of view regarding the 10,000 words and the endless sidebars - currently seems fruitless!


Mod edit to clarify quotation boxes.
 
Al Today said:
No, methinks we are not equal.

That is interesting... Although it seems to be going off on another tangent from this thread - I am curious as to what you mean by this?

I believe there is a similar theme that runs in Altas Shrugged, which seems to be a bible of sorts for people that believe that those that work harder or smarter get to a different point in life than people who are less talented or downright lazy!

Please clarify?


Mod edit to clarify quotation boxes.
 
Loud John said:
Truth Seeker said:
Perhaps that's the real issue? When we become identified with anything, it keeps us living in illusion and unable to see the crux of the matter. Because of your identification with past wounds that have been afflicted through your own past, you view the world in black and white terms - persecuted and persecutor. The inability to discern - in this case to always see yourself as the victim - is a refusal to take responsibility for your own past and current thinking that keeps you there. This denial of responsibility also keeps you comfortable as it reflects your own upbringing and the mechanisms developed that helped a small child survive. The problem comes when one grows up and finds that those same mechanisms no longer work yet are applied - projected - onto any situation that allows you to continue playing the role of victim. This keeps one chasing their tail so to speak. This can also be applied to experiences relating to high strangeness.

Yes this sure seems to be happening in the Jean and Marie situation on SOTT right now.
What do you mean?
 
Happyville and MoskoeOne in order to have a proper and clear communication, please do take some time to quote the authors you are adressing in your posts. Thanks.
 
Happyville said:
No, methinks we are not equal.

That is interesting... Although it seems to be going off on another tangent from this thread - I am curious as to what you mean by this?

I believe there is a similar theme that runs in Altas Shrugged, which seems to be a bible of sorts for people that believe that those that work harder or smarter get to a different point in life than people who are less talented or downright lazy!

Please clarify?
It seemed evident to me, in the context of a response to what luke.wilson wrote. In fact, AI Today even explained it. Perhaps you are reading too much into the word "equal".

To play back for you, L.W wrote:
Take MoskoeOne for example,

According to his profile overview he is brand new to the forum. Now he is displaying what he thinks. Ideas that up to now have held great value to him, after all, through this ideas, his perceived identity, he found this forum. A place where from outside, he thought, finally, a place where I can fit. Be amongst equals...
Suggesting that MoskoeOne was pleased to find this forum and would have initially felt to be among equals, equals in thoughts, ideas, knowledge, intellect. However, as AI Today explained, due to the paths we are on, specific to the learning requirements of the individual and therefore unequal to another path, we are not equals (my interpretation).

Therefore, the varying degrees of maturity in our thinking, intellect, knowledge, awareness make us unequal. This is not to say the quality of one individual is greater than another, but the quality on one's contributions could certainly be greater than another.

Perhaps, you were too focused on trying to find things wrong with what is going on here that you are missing important aspects.

It is interesting that you feel this "pissing match" (and I believe you meant pissing match and your later correction wasn't genuine) and "side conversations", as you put it, are fruitless. You don't see how helping people see their own programs or discussing different perspectives as bearing fruit?

It is also interesting that you refer to the discussion as "side conversations" and show a concern for going off topic. In fact, these conversations are of primary importance.

There's a certain type of person I've encountered who are so rules focused that they have great difficulty when things go outside of the expected structure and focus on the aberation and not the substance. You remind me of this inflexible type. In this case, the structure would be traditional forum protocol to ensure a thread stays on topic. Although we generally adhere to this protocol, there are specific circumstances when a greater good requires divergence from the norm.

A thread usually starts in the direction of the author's intent, but if issues emerge that are ultimately of greater value, addressing them takes precedence and the focus of the thread shifts.

Unfortunately, it is often difficult to point out a program to someone, especially when they have an investment in their initial message.
While programs get pointed out to the author, some members (usually newer ones or lurkers) become uncomfortable because they percieve unfairness and feel they need to jump into the dialogue to protect the author of the thread. Unfortunately, their perception is actually identification with a wound they themselves carry. Perhaps this is happening with you?

This is a research forum with a twist, which is that we have also come together to work on ourselves through the mirror of the network. We aren't here to debate and arguing is rarely tolerated.

I hope you can see the difference between discussing different points of view and arguing. It is usually the emotional investment one has in their ideas that leads to arguing.
For someone who has been on this forum for a while, you are coming across as being argumentative and demanding and should know better. As well, you are showing evidence of narrow thinking.

obyvatel pointed out that you have levelled some serious accusations against the forum and asked you to back them up. I suggest you put your effort into rereading all of your comments, try to see them from a perspective other than your own if you can, and see if you can learn something about yourself. But before that, you should either justify those accusations or correct the record.
 
Happyville and MoskoeOne in order to have a proper and clear communication, please do take some time to quote the authors you are adressing in your posts. Thanks.

I'm unsure what you mean here:

-more words?
-just repeating their name in addition to where its written in the quote?
-Longer quotes to put it in clearer context?
-some other issue that is none of the above?
 
Back
Top Bottom