Is LONELY a program?

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=axj]The predator" (false personality, ego) has infested "the machine", but they are not one and the same.[/quote]

This is an artificial distinction which is limiting knowledge of the predator and mitigating it's power.

It's a buffer.

 

[obyvatel]

Again, even if something is "mechanical" (such as breath) does not mean that it is "the predator". I thought we already had that?

"The predator" can also be interchangeable with "the machine", breathing is a function of the machine, emotional needs are functions of the machine, just different parts of same.

So you are saying that breathing is "the predator"? Here I completely disagree. "The predator" (false personality, ego) has infested "the machine", but they are not one and the same.

I think the question here is that who is in control of the body that needs to breathe and the mind that needs to have social relations? Till we are awake, we are mechanical and as such all the functions of the organism serves the mechanical purpose - to feed the predator.

[quote author=axj]
In the highlighted part I said that emotional needs ARE mechanical, that is they are a part of "the machine" and not the predator. Fulfilling emotional needs is not much different than fulfilling the physical need to breath. It is how the machine works and we need it to function well. Fulfilling social needs makes sure that the machine functions.
[/quote]

Till we are awake we are mechanical and fulfilling social needs serves the purpose of feeding the predator. If we breathe well, we are a well-breathing machine which serves the purpose of feeding the predator. That does not mean that we stop breathing or fulfilling social needs - the goal is to wake up. After someone awakens, he/she still breathes and fulfills social needs but does so consciously - so it no longer necessarily serves the predator.

That is my current understanding fwiw.

 

[Menna]

Ana what you said about relating to others and others relating to you really just helped me out and gave me peace of mind. Thanks

 

[Alada]

Again, even if something is "mechanical" (such as breath) does not mean that it is "the predator". I thought we already had that?

"The predator" can also be interchangeable with "the machine", breathing is a function of the machine, emotional needs are functions of the machine, just different parts of same.

So you are saying that breathing is "the predator"? Here I completely disagree. "The predator" (false personality, ego) has infested "the machine", but they are not one and the same.

It seems you don't understand the context within which these words are being used. They are both interchangeable because they both describe unconscious processes. Breathing is an unconscious processes, emotional needs are unconscious processes. Different parts of same problem, the semantics of it does not matter.

Have you read In Search of the Miraculous?

[quote author=axj]
The point you seem to be missing is that we have not only "mechanical" physical needs such as breath, but also emotional needs, which are also "mechanical" but NOT a part of the predator.

Then try to describe precisely, one emotional need that is not mechanical.

In the highlighted part I said that emotional needs ARE mechanical, that is they are a part of "the machine" and not the predator. Fulfilling emotional needs is not much different than fulfilling the physical need to breath. It is how the machine works and we need it to function well. Fulfilling social needs makes sure that the machine functions.

[/quote]

Do you mean that at this level you believe emotions are instinctive, like dogs? Remember the Cs saying dogs experience love as need? And if we do not wish live like dogs?

Have you read In Search of the Miraculous?

 

[nofretete1969]

I think for some people will it be a program.

Why?

I remenber all my time here on earth it will be a beattle. Already as a child people said "you are wrong". 40 years later it never end. All the time I think about it, but I can t catch it. Meanwhile it costs genuinly power for find out what is to be learned. And the question, why I could recognize all the things, those around us it happens again and again, if I am lonely.

 

[Aya]

I have been observing this in myself and I think it is accurate. I don't dislike people but I think that I automatically assume that people are not going to like me due to emotional programming that I have. I tend to avoid interactions because I assume I will be rejected or will not be good enough, and I do not want to experience more abandonment. So essentially these negative beliefs about myself and others are creating the situations where I feel abandoned. I feel inside that I am a good person and would be a good friend but being unable to connect with people due to this programming creates my feelings of loneliness, osit.

I feel the same way when I interact with people. I sometimes unconsciously assume that I am "weird" so I do not fit in the crowd and "different" so people are not going to like me, and I shy away from some people. When that happens, I feel "lonely" and after I try to justify that it is something I deserve it. After all feeling lonely is better than taking a chance to be hated, isn't it?... It's so silly if I think about it.

I sometimes confused with sadness and loneliness. In Castaneda, Don Juan says that it's natural to be sad for no overt reason. Since very young, I was "lonely" and it has been part of life to feel lonely. So I remember when I was a kid, I filled the empty hole of loneliness by accepting surrounding things as friends like plants, trees etc. But I do not remember being "needy" just because I felt that way.

It is all a question of wich center are we using to relate to others and wich center they are using.

Emotions are important and valuable things, even the negative ones, but as long as they control one's behavior and/or thoughts, as long as they drive a person, instead of them being utilized by the person, they are programs (the predator).

I am having hard time describing emotions in words and I think it's better not to identify with what I feel. We need to keep observing our emotions carefully in order to understand the cause of feeling the emotions and to spot the programs taking over our actions and thoughts.

 

[axj]

In the highlighted part I said that emotional needs ARE mechanical, that is they are a part of "the machine" and not the predator. Fulfilling emotional needs is not much different than fulfilling the physical need to breath. It is how the machine works and we need it to function well. Fulfilling social needs makes sure that the machine functions.

Very true but it makes sure that the machine continues to function as a machine and not as a vessel controlled but an awakened conscious being

Without a well functioning machine you cannot do the Work. It is as simple as that. If you do not breath, you die. If you do not fulfill the need to have contact with people, it will have very detrimental effects and you may go crazy like a person stranded on an uninhabited island...

Some aspects of the machine, such as programs, need to be stopped through conscious choice - those are the areas infested by the "predator" or false personality. Other "automatic" aspects of the machine, such as blood circulation, we do not need to stop. We need them to function well in order to do the Work.

So you are saying that breathing is "the predator"? Here I completely disagree. "The predator" (false personality, ego) has infested "the machine", but they are not one and the same.

I think the question here is that who is in control of the body that needs to breathe and the mind that needs to have social relations? Till we are awake, we are mechanical and as such all the functions of the organism serves the mechanical purpose - to feed the predator.

A person who is awake still needs many of the "mechanical" functions of the organism, such as blood circulation, to function well in order to continue doing the Work.

So you are saying that breathing is "the predator"? Here I completely disagree. "The predator" (false personality, ego) has infested "the machine", but they are not one and the same.

It seems you don't understand the context within which these words are being used. They are both interchangeable because they both describe unconscious processes. Breathing is an unconscious processes, emotional needs are unconscious processes. Different parts of same problem, the semantics of it does not matter.

Have you read In Search of the Miraculous?

It is not about the semantics at all. It is the question whether some "automatic" processes of the machine are needed in order to do the Work and have nothing to do with the predator or false personality. Examples: breath, blood circulation, emotional need for human contact.

And yes, I read ISOM.

[quote author=axj]
The point you seem to be missing is that we have not only "mechanical" physical needs such as breath, but also emotional needs, which are also "mechanical" but NOT a part of the predator.

Then try to describe precisely, one emotional need that is not mechanical.

In the highlighted part I said that emotional needs ARE mechanical, that is they are a part of "the machine" and not the predator. Fulfilling emotional needs is not much different than fulfilling the physical need to breath. It is how the machine works and we need it to function well. Fulfilling social needs makes sure that the machine functions.

Do you mean that at this level you believe emotions are instinctive, like dogs? Remember the Cs saying dogs experience love as need? And if we do not wish live like dogs? [/quote]

They did not say that dogs experience love as need, but the other way round:

Q: (L) Do dogs feel love?
A: Dogs feel need as love.

And in any case, even if dogs experience need as love, this has nothing to do with us "living like dogs". This is like saying: dogs need to breath, do you want us to breath too and live like dogs?

 

[anart]

axj, you seem to be being obstinate, just to be obstinate. In that, you continue to miss the valid points others are making.

They did not say that dogs experience love as need, but the other way round:

Q: (L) Do dogs feel love?
A: Dogs feel need as love.

This is a great example of legalistic nitpicking - which is evidence of a Right Man Syndrome program running.

 

[Graalsword]

I think it is a program. In many cases as others already said with other words, the need to be with people around could be a way to avoid being with yourself. However at the same time, feelings of loneliness are normal when one has no real honest mutual intimate sharing of emotions and thoughts with others. Such a relationship can only happen among colinear people, I think so.

 

[cubbex]

They did not say that dogs experience love as need, but the other way round:

Q: (L) Do dogs feel love?
A: Dogs feel need as love.

And in any case, even if dogs experience need as love, this has nothing to do with us "living like dogs". This is like saying: dogs need to breath, do you want us to breath too and live like dogs?

Need=love, love=need

Seriously, appart of your theories and speculations, can you see the way you have reacted to the responses from others, if you were right or wrong does not care, but have you seen the(echo to anart) obstinate way you answer??? like believing you are a teacher when in reality you are a student sharing, in the illusion that maybe you are only right.

Sometimes we believe we are right projecting on to others our expectations, when after in future you realize you were wrong and who was correct was the other person.
I've found something that Ouspensky says about the machine, if someone looses itself with this milk shake of concepts predator, ego or blood circulation:

He does not know his own limitations and his own possibilities. He does not even know to how great an extent he does not know himself.
Man has invented many machines, and he knows that a complicated machine needs sometimes years of careful study before one can use it or control it. But he does not apply this knowledge to himself, although he himself is a much more complicated machine than any machine he has invented.
He has all sorts of wrong ideas about himself. First of all he does not realise that he actually is a machine.

What does it mean that man is a machine?

It means that he has no independent movements, inside or outside of himself. He is a machine which is brought into motion by external influences and external impacts. All his movements, actions, words, ideas, emotions, moods and thoughts are produced by external influences. By himself, he is just an automaton with a certain store of memories of previous experiences, and a certain amount of reserve energy.

We must understand that man can do nothing.But he does not realise this and ascribes to himself the capacity to do. This is the first wrong thing that man ascribes to himself.
That must be understood very clearly. Man cannot do. Everything that man thinks he does, really happens. It happens exactly as 'it rains,' or 'it thaws.'In the English language there are no impersonal verbal forms which can be used in relation to human actions. So we must continue to say that man thinks, reads, writes, loves, hates, starts wars, fights, and so on. Actually, all this happens.

Man cannot move, think or speak of his own accord. He is a marionette pulled here and there by invisible strings. If he understands this, he can learn more about himself, and possibly then things may begin to change for him. But if he cannot realise and understand his utter mechanicalness or if he does not wish to accept it as a fact, he can learn nothing more, and things cannot change for him, Man is a machine, but a very peculiar machine. He is a machine which, in right circumstances, and with right treatment, can know that he is a machine, and having fully realised this, he may find the ways to cease to be a machine.

So ti looks that the loonelines thing it is mechanical if you choose it or not, you could feel it by a pure reaction of your surroundings and context, and you may choose it by your reactive anture of wanting to be alone, like the schizoids psychopaths. I don't really see the relation with the predator appart of being the dragon that fears us to stop being lonely, to stop being mechanical so to speak.

 

[Palinurus]

Hi all,

I thought I would toss in the following.

Loneliness is a feeling you can have anywhere - even when not being alone at all. There are famous examples to find. For instance, where I live we had an autobiography published (1959, i.e. long after abdication) by one of our former queens, Wilhelmina, which she titled: "Eenzaam maar niet alleen" (English: "Lonely but not alone"). In it, she describes parts of her life as queen always surrounded by many people but nevertheless hardly ever on equal footing with them. She very much suffered from the formalities of courtlife and her daughter, Juliana, tried to change much of it into more up to date styling of both forms and content - maybe too much so, as our current queen, Beatrix, shuffled back a bit to the antics of her grandmother.

In sociology, there is a famous text (1950, revised 2001) to mention: "The lonely crowd: a study of the changing American character" , by David Riesman and others.

Here are some relevant links: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lonely_Crowd , _http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Crowd-Revised-Changing-Character/dp/0300088655 and _http://www.robertfulford.com/LonelyCrowd.html . Here's one of the reviews at Amazon:

Still Holds up well, even with its flaws, April 18, 2008

This is a sophisticated qualitative psychological analysis of American character: One deeply rooted in the ways of not just American history, but also world history. It attempts to trace the development of our nation's character as those aspects of history that most affected it, such as changes in demographics and going from a frontier to an industrialized nation, unfolded. As the typology developed draws on the history of other societies as much as it does on American history, it is argued to be generally applicable to almost any society.

Reisman's analysis depends heavily on the three-part assumption that connects the kind of forces and conditions that are seen as producing societal conformity with the types of conformity a nation enforces upon its people, and the national character types and behavior such conformity eventually produces. The key to this three-part assumption is that certain societal pressures such as industrialization, militarization, and various forms of oppression, all can compel certain kinds of behavior that would otherwise run counter to the natural inclinations of the people involved.

For instance, the author argues that prior to industrialization, the pressures for conformity on the frontier, the "every man for himself" mentality, forced people to pursue their own set of private goals. Such people according to Reisman were required to be more "inner-directed." As the nation industrialized, and the demographics became dominated by younger people, society enforced a kind of conformity that the author describes as "tradition-directed." As industrialization matured and middle-aged people dominated, the pressures for conformity then produced "other-directed" people.

It is these three character types that often overlap and become blurred in their distinction that Reisman discusses for the rest of the book. He uses them in a wide variety of examples to demonstrate why his typology has general applicability.

When I read this book in college, I was greatly impressed with its arguments and the claims of general applicability of its typology. Now that I am older, I can see its flaws better. Still, the description of the character types and the personalities that they suggest continue to resonate with what one can see every day in the characters that grace American culture.
Five Stars

This now classic text which I read over four decades ago, has greatly contributed to my abilty to discern personality types and situational constraints to human behavior rooted in historical developments as well as in cultural backgrounds - both among the fundamental factors that help shape our reality and the ways we cope with them.

As for the question at hand, I do believe feelings of loneliness can be a program especially when combined with self pity and really wallowing in it - as I did in puberty and early adolescence.

Strangely enough, I've been alone almost all of my life (due to circumstances which seem irrelevant here) but I hardly ever find myself feeling lonely - don't ever have time for that, too busy with all sorts of demanding and fulfilling activities. So maybe I inadvertently stumbled upon some sort of 'solution': to keep myself company while doing the work and following up on all sorts of leads in all sorts of quests into a multitude of directions. And I have some hobbies on top of that... ;)

 

[go2]

Again, even if something is "mechanical" (such as breath) does not mean that it is "the predator". I thought we already had that?

"The predator" can also be interchangeable with "the machine", breathing is a function of the machine, emotional needs are functions of the machine, just different parts of same.

So you are saying that breathing is "the predator"? Here I completely disagree. "The predator" (false personality, ego) has infested "the machine", but they are not one and the same.

I think the question here is that who is in control of the body that needs to breathe and the mind that needs to have social relations? Till we are awake, we are mechanical and as such all the functions of the organism serves the mechanical purpose - to feed the predator.

[quote author=axj]
In the highlighted part I said that emotional needs ARE mechanical, that is they are a part of "the machine" and not the predator. Fulfilling emotional needs is not much different than fulfilling the physical need to breath. It is how the machine works and we need it to function well. Fulfilling social needs makes sure that the machine functions.

Till we are awake we are mechanical and fulfilling social needs serves the purpose of feeding the predator. If we breathe well, we are a well-breathing machine which serves the purpose of feeding the predator. That does not mean that we stop breathing or fulfilling social needs - the goal is to wake up. After someone awakens, he/she still breathes and fulfills social needs but does so consciously - so it no longer necessarily serves the predator.

That is my current understanding fwiw.
[/quote]

Obyvatel, that is a new perspective of the elephant. The mechanical functions are all food for the predator, until we wake up. Yes, the predator claims or identifies the functions of the centers as food for its false existence. I understand this idea more clearly when I separate the words "need" and "function". When an "emotional function" becomes food for the predator, it becomes an "emotional need". The distinction is evidenced by identification. Has your flea become an elephant, axj?

The functions of the thinking, feeling and instinctive-motor centers are mechanical and operate based on programs inherited or learned. When the programmed mechanical functions are identified as “I”, this false “I” is the predator's mind. The effort to be impartially aware and attentive to the three centers of function, simultaneously for every event of our lives, is the effort to become Man 4. Waking up is the struggle for impartial awareness of the functions of the three centers, without the functions becoming “food for” or “part of” the predator’s mind. Then, the functions can serve the master’s aim, rather than the predator’s baroque and morose mind which distorts “I am alone” to “I am lonely.”

Edit: Sorry for the quote error

 

[seekr]

I think it is a program. In many cases as others already said with other words, the need to be with people around could be a way to avoid being with yourself. However at the same time, feelings of loneliness are normal when one has no real honest mutual intimate sharing of emotions and thoughts with others. Such a relationship can only happen among colinear people, I think so.

Although I've found myself in a few relationships in the past 5-6 years, they all seem to get to a certain "level" and then there is a point where I must keep searching for more answers, and my partner has no interest to continue down the rabbit hole, at this point we part ways. Some have been more intimate than others and the level of sharing varies, usually with me having to practice external consideration, because some people just don't want to see some things. I can say that I still keep in touch with them sometimes talking several times a week. So we remain good friends, but if both of us can't share on the same deep level, I may still feel a certain amount of loneliness at times because I don't feel a connection on a deeper level.

I feel sometimes that I know them, but they don't really know me, because they choose to believe the lies of society. But I must respect that choice and move on

 

[Mountain Crown]

It’s just doesn’t jibe with the facts to exclude the body when, referring to our mechanical nature, we use terms such as “the predator” or the “ego”.

A large part of our feelings are biochemically induced responses to external stimuli. In the Wave Laura provides the science which shows how events in early childhood cause specific chemical changes to which the body literally becomes addicted, and that future events only have to be vaguely similar to reproduce those same biochemical responses.

Neurologically these responses have their own pathway via the amygdala, bypassing the cortical region that is responsible for memory and rational thinking.

When someone is feeling lonely it could very well be a case of the body’s automatic production of the same chemicals/hormones that was created when, as an infant found itself completely and traumatically alone when awakening and hungry.

Generally, it’s problematic to consider conceptual distinctions like “mind,” and “body” as being separate. -FWIW

 

[axj]

axj, you seem to be being obstinate, just to be obstinate. In that, you continue to miss the valid points others are making.

They did not say that dogs experience love as need, but the other way round:

Q: (L) Do dogs feel love?
A: Dogs feel need as love.

This is a great example of legalistic nitpicking - which is evidence of a Right Man Syndrome program running.

Anart, what I see is in your reply amounts to not much more than trying to shut up someone you disagree with... Right Man Syndrome? I thought we were having a discussion where we have different viewpoints and where it seemed necessary to clarify a few times.