Joe's bomb

[mada85]

Hello all - I would like to make an introduction of my self to you. I joined the forum a couple of weeks ago, having read Laura's work (Wave, Secret History etc) also Castaneda, Gurdjieff, Lobaczewski, Mouravieff and so on. I am finding my membership here to be a tremendous challenge to my ego, something I didn't expect, I would have to call it a shock. I realise now that I joined hoping, amongst other things, to be able to dazzle you all with my amazing knowledge. The posts I made to the forum were expressive of that. That is not the only reason I joined, but it was a hidden reason; unacknowledged in myself until I started to think about what I could contribute to the forum; a kind of nagging at the back of my mind, which I would now ascribe to the predator's mind. This nagging would be urging me, for example, to seek out previously unseen news articles and comment on them in a very intelligent and perspicacious way - I actually thought that I had nothing to learn and could dive straight in at the deep end. I find myself quite uncomfortable with this realization - the great Adam is not so great after all. I am shocked by how little I actually understand and know.

Having spent more time intensively reading some of the threads here, I was just now very struck by this post from Joe in this thread.

The idea that "we are the darkness from which we flee" sounds very much like the new age disinfo that is so prevalent these days. The "darkness" is a "foreign installation" to be fought and overcome, not "integrated" or "not looked at" in order to make it go away.

For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action. Just as incorrect knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all. "Putting ones hand on the stove" is exactly what we are enticed to do by that "foreign installation", it was "putting our hand on the stove" that got us into this mess in the first place. Very attractive and alluring for sure, but a deception nonetheless.

If this is your understanding of esoteric studies Bucketman, then it should be obvious to you that the bar you walked into 7 years or so ago is still the wrong bar for you.

Joe

Joe, I want to thank you for writing this. It was an explosion for me. As you can guess from the two quotes at the bottom of my post, this is something I have been contemplating for some time and I have been of the same opinion as Bucketman - "we are the darkness from which we flee", and even after reading all the material about the foreign installation, I still didn't grok it. I don't know if I have yet truly grokked it to be honest, but your words are a good starting point. I've just read Illion's Darkness Over Tibet and was struck by his description of spiritual life as a fight - I have discovered in myself yet another layer of new age programming, but your words have illuminated the nature of the fight very clearly: identify the foreign installation and fight it. Therefore a major part of the Work is to study the nature of the predator's mind. Trying to integrate or harmonise it doesn't work. Sometimes I can read and read and read the same themes and ideas and suddenly one small thing can trigger a new level of understanding. I think I understand a little better now how this forum functions as a school.

 

[manitoban]

I am shocked by how little I actually understand and know.

Hi mada85,
I felt the same way when I first joined the forum. It took me a while to realise that far from knowing a lot, I actually knew nothing. It was a shock to me too, but in a good way, and started me on the search for truth. Welcome aboard!

 

[Z...]

First comes the shock, then depression and then... who knows

 

[rs]

First comes the shock, then depression and then... who knows

First comes the shock, then depression then emancipation. At first it is terrifying to know that there are no limits, but slowly it becomes liberating.

Q: (L) Then, just put it this way: I am befuddled and overloaded.

A: Befuddling is fun!

Q: (L) Well, I guess that if any of this is going to be of particular significance to us, then we will certainly find out the details as we go along.

A: How many times do we have to tell you?!?!

Q: (L) Learning is fun! Right!

A: The entire sum total of all existence exists within each of you, and vice versa.

Q: (L) Then what is the explanation for the "manyness" that we perceive?

A: Perception of 3rd density.

Q: (L) So, the entire universe is inside me... okay, that's... I understand. Oddly enough, I do. The problem is accessing it, stripping away the veils.

A: That is the fun part.

 

[Laura]

Just so all of you know, this IS the process the C's took me through. And it wasn't easy for me either. So, my all-time favorite:

Q: (L) This recent 'awakening' or period of seeing things
with such clarity, as they really were, and the whole
picture of the interactions between people and how truly
ugly it can be. I plunged into a terrible depression. I
needed to get my balance from seeing so much all at once.
Can you explain to me what was going on?

A: Growth.

Q: (L) I tried to share this perception with other people,
and almost without exception, when I said to people that I
was finally seeing things in their true state and it was
NOT a pretty picture, they all said "well, you are
obviously seeing this through the eyes of some major
spirit possession!" Why would they say this?

A: First of all, it is not correct to perceive "everything in
such darkness and gloom, etc." That is merely the result
of a cocoon of falsehood being removed. Celebrate the
balance. Don't mourn the death of an illusion of an
imbalance.

Q: (L) Where do I go from here? Where do we all go?

A: Everywhere.

 

[Guest]

For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action. Just as incorrect knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all. "Putting ones hand on the stove" is exactly what we are enticed to do by that "foreign installation", it was "putting our hand on the stove" that got us into this mess in the first place. Very attractive and alluring for sure, but a deception nonetheless.

If this were the case, the only way to evolve would be to sit around, not acting on knowledge, and just thinking. The point is that no action is correct or incorrect but a matter of polarity. You need to act with the level of knowledge you have in order to learn. And you are ALWAYS acting, vibrating the frequency of who and what you are (is acting.). There is no 'non-action' in this game.
The universe is a SCHOOL, not a Library. Which means you need to execute the lessons, not just be aware of them. In the course of execution, you may make actions that are less...efficient towards your polarity than others. Thems the breaks. Try again with a little more awareness this time.
The worse thing one can do towards one's progress is consider something correct or incorrect. It is what you do till you realize it's vital components, then that which is no longer serving you falls away.
Same goes for 'incorrect' knowledge. In-COMPLETE knowledge often leads to actions that may inhibit the learning process. But the more you strive, act, learn from your actions, the more is unveiled eventually.
That is the reason for the veil of forgetfullness. The universe is testing, creating, and re-creating itself always.

Sometimes I can read and read and read the same themes and ideas and suddenly one small thing can trigger a new level of understanding. I think I understand a little better now how this forum functions as a school.

One phenomena you might want to consider is that time has passed since you read it last. The actions you executed, based on your level of awareness, led to growth which was rewarded with more complete knowledge when you re-read the info a second time. Everything changes, moves, acts.

 

[ark]

If this were the case, the only way to evolve would be to sit around, not acting on knowledge, and just thinking. The point is that no action is correct or incorrect but a matter of polarity. You need to act with the level of knowledge you have in order to learn. And you are ALWAYS acting, vibrating the frequency of who and what you are (is acting.). There is no 'non-action' in this game.

The devil is always in the details. In the case at hand the devil is in what we consider to be "an action".
Let me point the devil explicitly:

When we make a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to NOT ACT rather than act in certain circumstances, is this act of making a choice an action or not?

For me it is an action (as we are active internally), though the result of this internal action is refraining from external action.

Internal activity is as important as external activity, since in a healthy human being they interact with each other.

So, when Joe says that non-action is sometimes the right choice, choosing non-action consciously is an action. For instance, when we know that
we do not have a correct knowledge, we may choose to not-act. For instance, you have a gun and someone apparently is breaking into your house at night. It can be a burglar and a killer, or it can be your kid returning from a sky-watching. You knowledge is inadequate. Will you then choose to act wrongly and shoot, or to not act, until you have more data?

It is always good to test our theories in practical situations.

 

[Pierre]

For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action. Just as incorrect knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all. "Putting ones hand on the stove" is exactly what we are enticed to do by that "foreign installation", it was "putting our hand on the stove" that got us into this mess in the first place. Very attractive and alluring for sure, but a deception nonetheless.

If this were the case, the only way to evolve would be to sit around, not acting on knowledge, and just thinking.

emphasizes mine.

Maybe I missed something but from what I understand the link between the two propositions doesn't look logical.

Joe : Better do nothing than something wrong
Greycat : then you never do anything

This deduction/consequence would be true if the only things we can do are wrong things.

I am not in Joe's mind but I guess that :
Better do nothing than something wrong
AND
Better do something good than nothing

 

[Fifth Way]

Laura: Thank you for your "all time favored"!
So many times on this forum I get to read just the right post that I so desperately need that very moment. Its almost eery.
... a real source for uplift - in times of depression - and a great inspiration. Again I am full of gratitude.

 

[Joe]

For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action. Just as incorrect knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all. "Putting ones hand on the stove" is exactly what we are enticed to do by that "foreign installation", it was "putting our hand on the stove" that got us into this mess in the first place. Very attractive and alluring for sure, but a deception nonetheless.

If this were the case, the only way to evolve would be to sit around, not acting on knowledge, and just thinking.

emphasizes mine.

Maybe I missed something but from what I understand the link between the two propositions doesn't look logical.

Joe : Better do nothing than something wrong
Greycat : then you never do anything

This deduction/consequence would be true if the only things we can do are wrong things.

I am not in Joe's mind but I guess that :
Better do nothing than something wrong
AND
Better do something good than nothing

Yes, Greycat seems to have misunderstood a little. The point was made in reference to bucketman's idea that we should engage in a certain activity that most had deduced to have a high probability of being detrimental. Bucketman was suggesting that we do it anyway because we might get something good out of it.

This is an example of what I meant when I said "for me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action", i.e. "incorrect" action that you KNOW to be "incorrect" (or dangerous) in advance, or that you at least know to have a high probability of being "incorrect".

In such a case it is better to "do nothing" i.e. not engage in the activity.

Joe

 

[Joe]

As you can guess from the two quotes at the bottom of my post, this is something I have been contemplating for some time and I have been of the same opinion as Bucketman - "we are the darkness from which we flee"

Signature: "One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The latter procedure, however, is disagreeable, and therefore, not popular."

There is an important and subtle distinction here between "being the darkness from which we flee" and "making the darkness conscious", it is the kind of subtle distinction that separates one world from another.

"Being the darkness from which we flee" suggests that we should embrace the darkness and "understand ourselves as it". "We are all one", or so they would like us to believe. Maybe we are "all one" in a larger, absolute sense, but not at this level baby, and the tasks of this level are to understand the differences between darkness and light. It is for this reason that we all possess both within ourselves, or at least the potential for both, and our job is to CHOOSE.

"Making the darkness conscious" is a different concept altogether, and suggests *transmuting* the darkness, not embracing or becoming one with it. Consciousness is light, darkness is....well....darkness. Lies and deceit thrive in darkness, knowledge of the Truth is the light which shines in the darkness of the lie and the darkness "comprehends it not", and the darkness does all it can to extinguish the light because it "burns".

It is not that we "flee from darkness", but that the darkness is perpetually fleeing from the light.

Joe

 

[Guest]

Joe : Better do nothing than something wrong
Greycat : then you never do anything

The exact words were NEVER and INCORRECT. It changes the meaning significantly.


I mostly wanted to bring to light those two words Joe used as they are hard to predict, so it might not sufficed to use them. .


Joe wrote: For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action.

First I have to say I can't say I side with Bucketman's idea either. That we should engage in said dangerous activity and gamble getting an auspicious outcome (Though I have done it, and made out just fine.). Mostly I see each situation as unique, having many factors both evident and not (the one's 'unseen' being th emost dangerous.).
And as is often the case with dangerous situations, you might not react the same as you would if you were sitting at your computer thinking about it. When the shock of the moment hits and there are loved ones in the way (or your own skin.), it creates a whirlwind of emotions that cloud your initial choice. In other words you think alot less clear when faced with danger...especially if one is unconditioned to it.
So I guess I was trying to point that the statement Joe made is only accurate in hypothetical cases.

 

[Guest]

When we make a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to NOT ACT rather than act in certain circumstances, is this act of making a choice an action or not?

For me it is an action (as we are active internally), though the result of this internal action is refraining from external action.

Internal activity is as important as external activity, since in a healthy human being they interact with each other.

So, when Joe says that non-action is sometimes the right choice, choosing non-action consciously is an action. For instance, when we know that
we do not have a correct knowledge, we may choose to not-act. For instance, you have a gun and someone apparently is breaking into your house at night. It can be a burglar and a killer, or it can be your kid returning from a sky-watching. You knowledge is inadequate. Will you then choose to act wrongly and shoot, or to not act, until you have more data?

It is always good to test our theories in practical situations.

I agree that internal activity is just as important as external. Wholeheartedly in fact. Having the two activitys balanced so that they don't stumble over eachother, however, is a very dynamic and hard learned 'third' activity (funny since we reside on '3rd' density no?). I already mentioned it in my reply to Axel_Dunor and Joe.

Joe wrote: For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action.

You can't say the word NEVER unless you know if the action is incorrect. And each scenario has a completley fluid and infinite amount of factors. The worst thing to do is assume.
Maybe Joe implied that, but, having made the mistake many times myself, I thought I would mention it.

 

[arkmod]

Joe wrote: For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action.

You can't say the word NEVER unless you know if the action is incorrect.

You are making two mistakes in one sentence.
First, it is not true that Joe can never say never unless itd. Joe CAN do this, and he did this, which contrdicts
your statement. Second, Joe said "For me". You wrongly interpreted it as "For me, Gray Cat". Niether gray cats
are Joes of SOTT, nor Joes of SOTT are grey cats. The truth is that Joe has his rather personal way of dealing with cats (but they are white, rather than gray) :) .

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Joe wrote: For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action.

You can't say the word NEVER unless you know if the action is incorrect.

Never say never? :P

The way I understand Joe's statement is that it does not involve any assessment of how correct or incorrect any particular action may or may not be. My understanding of "incorrect action" is an action that leaves you "worse"
off than you were before you acted at all. And by "worse" I mean further from intended goal/destination. And as such, it makes perfect sense to me that if you do something that leaves you worse off than you were before you did anything, you were obviously better off doing nothing. And again, "worse" isn't just some subjective judgement but simply farther from intended goal. As a sidenote, if something that you do ends up leading you away from your goal, then you have no free will because free will means choice, and choice means ability to CHOOSE which means being able to literally actualize an intention. Just intending is not yet "choosing". So if your actions lead you away from your intentions, you don't have the ability to choose, and thus, at least in that area, have no free will. This is how I understand it anyway, and why believing anything is literally surrendering your free will to someone/something else.

But back to the thought process, the question is, how to prevent incorrect action? I think the answer is to not separate our actions from our understanding aka "being sincere" in our actions and words. And how to make sure that our understanding is correct? The C's said that we can never ever be deceived or lead astray or have "false knowledge" if we are simply openly seeking to acquire knowledge aka truth. As I undersand it, if we seek truth we cannot possibly ever be deceived or led astray simply because being deceived requires making an assumption, requires believing something. But since seeking truth is the direct opposite of making assumptions, as long as we seek truth (as opposed to just telling ourselves that we are without actually doing so), we cannot possibly go astray. And if we cannot be deceived, then whatever knowledge we have will not be false knowledge. It may be incomplete but it won't be false.

And that's kinda tricky because obviously we can never have absolute certainty so we can ALWAYS be "wrong" in terms of our current understanding or assessment of something. But this does not make us "wrong" because we never pretended that our understanding/assessment was absolutely correct. So as long as we never pretend to know more than we objectively do know, and never pretend to be able to do what we cannot do, and act with "sincerity" with ourselves, we really cannot be "wrong", osit. In other words, always acknowledge all areas where our knowledge is missing and never fill those areas in with assumption. So if I say: "I have 4 fingers" while that statement can be wrong, as long as I don't pretend it is RIGHT to any greater degree than the given data allows, I am not wrong. And as long as I don't pretend that my assessment of the data is more objective or accurate than my assessment really is or that I have more data than I really do, etc.

Or maybe this whole thing can be summed up as don't "assume" or "pretend" in any area about anything! Do what you know and intend, and intend and know what you do. For example, do I know and intend what I just wrote, and did I only write that which I know and intended to write? And are there any "pretending" or "assumptions" in my attempt to answer that question for myself?