OP and knowledge

[agni]

In your opinion, how OP or person without soul would react to knowledge ?

Would any of them show interest in material ? Would they attempt to understand it ?

The reason I am asking, one of my friends was concerned yesterday, since he said he is not really bothered by “feelings" . Only for the moment he goes through it. For him it’s a day or two. Also, he says he has a problem recalling his memories… Can it be a result of some kind of block ?

In any case, he asked me what if he does not have a soul? I told him, would it change anything even in case you if don’t ?

 

[kenlee]

In your opinion, how OP or person without soul would react to knowledge ?

Imo, for the "man machine" knowledge is primarily based on expectations of self gain. The man machine always lives between the two forces of attraction and repulsion and is either "opening" or "shutting."

Would any of them show interest in material ? Would they attempt to understand it ?

Sure. See above.

The reason I am asking, one of my friends was concerned yesterday, since he said he is not really bothered by “feelings" . Only for the moment he goes through it. For him it’s a day or two. Also, he says he has a problem recalling his memories… Can it be a result of some kind of block ?

It may be he prefers to be machine like and he may be "shutting" them off.

In any case, he asked me what if he does not have a soul? I told him, would it change anything even in case you if don’t ?

Best to assume you don't have a soul and begin from there.

 

[anart]

In your opinion, how OP or person without soul would react to knowledge ?

Would any of them show interest in material ? Would they attempt to understand it ?

To my understanding, they could be as interested or an uninterested as someone with soul potential.

The reason I am asking, one of my friends was concerned yesterday, since he said he is not really bothered by “feelings" . Only for the moment he goes through it. For him it’s a day or two. Also, he says he has a problem recalling his memories… Can it be a result of some kind of block ?

Actually, it may just be that he dissociates a lot - or has a lot of buffers and self-calming mechanisms, or both - whether he has soul potential or not. It's not mutually exclusive; people with and without a kernal of a soul can and do dissociate and self calm to the point of not remembering a lot of anything.

In any case, he asked me what if he does not have a soul? I told him, would it change anything even in case you if don’t ?

Sounds like he wants a definitive answer about such things - as Kenlee said, it's probably best to assume one doesn't have a developed soul, and to work toward growing one - if that makes any sense at all...

 

[agni]

Thank you guys, it makes perfect sense to me :)

 

[Ruth]

In your opinion, how OP or person without soul would react to knowledge ?

Varying degrees dependant on intellect. An OP would be more interested in the mechanical benefits of something (i.e how can they use it). I've always believed all things have a soul, just that non-OP have abilities and interests which are less 'functional' or mechanical in nature.

Would any of them show interest in material ? Would they attempt to understand it ?

Sure, if they saw a benifit to doing so. OPs tend to be a little bit lacking in open minded curiosity (unless there's some kind of a 'payoff' for them somewhere). They like the black and white answers and uncomplicated 'functional' things. Awareness is where they are lacking, not intellect. With both types of populations you will get the differences in intellect, its how both of these apply it, or 'look' at things that differs. Now, that's hard to measure.

The reason I am asking, one of my friends was concerned yesterday, since he said he is not really bothered by “feelings" . Only for the moment he goes through it. For him it’s a day or two. Also, he says he has a problem recalling his memories… Can it be a result of some kind of block ?

OPs have 'feelings', but they tend to be based on NEED. i.e. "I 'need' this, I 'want' this... it makes me 'feel' secure/safe/belonging etc." Alot of their identity is wrapped up with their reflection off other people, too, so they need socialisation in order to 'pick up' some kind of identity. They're not very individualistic. They need others people and things to 'program' them.

In any case, he asked me what if he does not have a soul? I told him, would it change anything even in case you if don’t ?

Or, as I think, an OP does have a soul, its just not the same kind of 'souped-up' more complicated soul of a non-op. Realistically, I think a non-OP would be more subject to change than an OP, simply because non-OPs are more open to change and ideas (that seem to have no practical 'use', other than the fact that they are 'interesting').

An analogy of trying to 'teach' an OP something: its like talking to a tree... if the tree learns to 'speak' it might get annoyed and ask you why you're trying to teach it anything in the first place... afterall, its a tree - it doesn't need to be anything else, there's simply no 'payoff' for it to be anything else.

 

[anart]

Varying degrees dependant on intellect. An OP would be more interested in the mechanical benefits of something (i.e how can they use it). I've always believed all things have a soul, just that non-OP have abilities and interests which are less 'functional' or mechanical in nature.

Ruth, what evidence or data can you supply to support this?

Sure, if they saw a benifit to doing so. OPs tend to be a little bit lacking in open minded curiosity (unless there's some kind of a 'payoff' for them somewhere). They like the black and white answers and uncomplicated 'functional' things. Awareness is where they are lacking, not intellect. With both types of populations you will get the differences in intellect, its how both of these apply it, or 'look' at things that differs. Now, that's hard to measure.

What evidence or data can you supply to support these statements? Seems you're running off, once again, into your land of pontification.

OPs have 'feelings', but they tend to be based on NEED. i.e. "I 'need' this, I 'want' this... it makes me 'feel' secure/safe/belonging etc." Alot of their identity is wrapped up with their reflection off other people, too, so they need socialisation in order to 'pick up' some kind of identity. They're not very individualistic. They need others people and things to 'program' them.

What data can you present in support of this most certain statement?

Or, as I think, an OP does have a soul, its just not the same kind of 'souped-up' more complicated soul of a non-op. Realistically, I think a non-OP would be more subject to change than an OP, simply because non-OPs are more open to change and ideas (that seem to have no practical 'use', other than the fact that they are 'interesting').

An analogy of trying to 'teach' an OP something: its like talking to a tree... if the tree learns to 'speak' it might get annoyed and ask you why you're trying to teach it anything in the first place... afterall, its a tree - it doesn't need to be anything else, there's simply no 'payoff' for it to be anything else.

What data can you present in support of these statements?

 

[Nević Nenad]

I had one friend and he knows much about “things" that we dealing on this forum for example, he is very well informed about many metaphysic, esotheric and similar topics, yet it is all to him only very interesting stories and nothing more.Things to show him of in front other people.I tell him about C’s transcripts and he commented how that could be very powerfull in skilled hands and how it is great opportunity for someone to make fortune.His “knowledge" was not followed by comprehension and without any wish for deeper thinking and investigation.He asked me all the time to talk him about what I am reading and tell him new stuff, which I did till the moment I realize that its only fun to him and nothing more, something that he could be “clever" It was very childish, we was 30.I think that he is OP.

 

[Ruth]

Ruth, what evidence or data can you supply to support this?

I've encorporated what the Cs said with my own observations of what occurs around me (eg how humans interact, and why they do and say the things they do). I can pretty much use this description to answer every request for 'data' that you have put to me. Much of it is gathered through observation as well as some interaction.

Seems you're running off, once again, into your land of pontification.

I'm not sure what this land 'is', much less if I've been there... can you please describe it to me? And does it involve making statements describing things that one has observed? As if to say "this is the best I can come up with, so far"?

What data can you present in support of these statements?

You'll only get observations for 'data' in this case and it will be my interpretation of those observations. Maybe a better place to start for people who like 'hard data' would be proving that a 'soul' actually exists (or doesn't exist) perhaps trying to measure it empirically. But it might be a little hard.

In this thread, assumptions have been made that a) OPs exist, b) non-OPs exist and c) souls exist. All I'm doing is trying to find some sort of 'reflection' or 'ripple' that this is in fact the case and I've done this by describing and interpreting what I see those 'ripples' or 'reflextions' of either an OP or a non-OP are. I'm not really sure what you are unhappy with. My interpretation of those 'ripples' or the fact that I have omitted to provide 'proof' that souls actually do exist.... empirically, that is....

It may be the case that I disagree with other's ideas, or that my way of 'observing' is different. Doesn't automatically mean I'm incorrect in what I'm seeing though just because I'm seeing differently.

 

[Azur]

In your opinion, how OP or person without soul would react to knowledge ?

Varying degrees dependant on intellect. An OP would be more interested in the mechanical benefits of something (i.e how can they use it). I've always believed all things have a soul, just that non-OP have abilities and interests which are less 'functional' or mechanical in nature.

Would any of them show interest in material ? Would they attempt to understand it ?

Sure, if they saw a benifit to doing so. OPs tend to be a little bit lacking in open minded curiosity (unless there's some kind of a 'payoff' for them somewhere). They like the black and white answers and uncomplicated 'functional' things. Awareness is where they are lacking, not intellect. With both types of populations you will get the differences in intellect, its how both of these apply it, or 'look' at things that differs. Now, that's hard to measure.

The reason I am asking, one of my friends was concerned yesterday, since he said he is not really bothered by “feelings" . Only for the moment he goes through it. For him it’s a day or two. Also, he says he has a problem recalling his memories… Can it be a result of some kind of block ?

OPs have 'feelings', but they tend to be based on NEED. i.e. "I 'need' this, I 'want' this... it makes me 'feel' secure/safe/belonging etc." Alot of their identity is wrapped up with their reflection off other people, too, so they need socialisation in order to 'pick up' some kind of identity. They're not very individualistic. They need others people and things to 'program' them.

In any case, he asked me what if he does not have a soul? I told him, would it change anything even in case you if don’t ?

Or, as I think, an OP does have a soul, its just not the same kind of 'souped-up' more complicated soul of a non-op. Realistically, I think a non-OP would be more subject to change than an OP, simply because non-OPs are more open to change and ideas (that seem to have no practical 'use', other than the fact that they are 'interesting').

An analogy of trying to 'teach' an OP something: its like talking to a tree... if the tree learns to 'speak' it might get annoyed and ask you why you're trying to teach it anything in the first place... afterall, its a tree - it doesn't need to be anything else, there's simply no 'payoff' for it to be anything else.

Ruth,

With your above observations, do you consider yourself an OP?

 

[Ruth]

With your above observations, do you consider yourself an OP?

If I was an OP it would be conceivable that I would not be interested in looking beneath or behind things... like getting to the bottom of mysteries, conspiracies or anything that. Incapable, perhaps unwilling (?) of 'thinking outside the box'. I might be repulsed or confused when other people started talking about these things. I have sensed that some people are open to these ideas (but are afraid of them - non-ops) and others simply don't see any use for them (ops).

If I was an OP, I think my life would be a lot easier and far less complicated. All I'd need would be a 'program' to work off and I'd be 'happy'.

I wouldn't have had so many previous lives (not exactly sure how this idea works).

If I was an OP, it is possible that I wouldn't have the types of observations that I do. Its easier to observe something 'other' than yourself. But it is also a lot easier interacting with people who are alike (getting on the same 'wavelength' with non-ops).

I don't think I am an OP.

And I don't think it matters much if I am or I'm not, nor is it particularly important. People simply are or they aren't, and that's life.

And I think some of my ideas are acurate, but I'm not sure on quite a few of them (very vague, in fact). Perhaps I am waiting for more data.

 

[kenlee]

I had one friend and he knows much about “things" that we dealing on this forum for example, he is very well informed about many metaphysic, esotheric and similar topics, yet it is all to him only very interesting stories and nothing more.

Yes, it is often like that where people are only interested in these subjects strictly for personal 'profit' whether it be for monetary profit or for ways to preserve their 'vain imaginings' and beliefs about themselves (or both). The whole new age movement, 911 movement, etc., is (by design) based on this 'vain imaginings' for personal 'profit.' This is also where people study the part taking it for the whole for personal gain.

In Gurdjieffs book 'Views From the Real World' a question was asked to Gurdjieff that I think relates to this:

Question: You advised sincerity. I have discovered that I would rather be a happy fool than an unhappy philosopher.

Answer: You believe you are not satisfied with yourself. I push you. You are quite mechanical, you cannot do anything, you are hallucinated. When you look with one center you are entirely under hallucination; when with
two you are half free, but if you look with three centers you cannot be under hallucination. You must begin by collecting material. You can have no bread without baking; knowledge is water, body is flour, and emotion-suffering- is fire.

This lack of fire--conscious suffering-- is what people will avoid at all costs to sustain their beliefe about themselves and keep their emotional centers asleep while dreaming that they are awake. Their subjects of interest now become nothing more then (as you say) 'interesting stories' much like the stories in the Bible to satisfy and confirm their belief systems.

This 'partial knowing' where the part is taken for the whole and this part is 'worshipped' from "feel good' belief systems (people can also 'feel good' about themselves by punishing themselves to make 'god happy') is, I think, represented by what Mouravieff calls the Chimera which is an "impossible being possessing a motor centre and an intellectual centre, but lacking an emotional centre."

Mouravieff wrote:
"The original esoteric significance of this monster has been lost, although its symbolic meaning is known and its name has passed into current language: by chimera we mean a false idea or a vain imagining. A chimeric mind sustains itself on illusions, and a chimeric project collapses when tested against facts, being groundless or unrealizable".

More here about the Chimera:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2357

 

[agni]

anart wrote:

Actually, it may just be that he dissociates a lot - or has a lot of buffers and self-calming mechanisms, or both - whether he has soul potential or not. It's not mutually exclusive; people with and without a kernal of a soul can and do dissociate and self calm to the point of not remembering a lot of anything.

Can it be a result of echo from past life as well? For a longest time I tend to think the person I am talking about went through war in past life. He has quite "unhealthy" interest in war material, not war by itself, but rather interest of solder life, what they have experienced and their stories. Plus in life he shows qualities of a solder. However, he is a peaceful person.
Self calming mechanism draws an interesting parallel. In my opinion, a person who goes through war numbs his feelings, due to seeing horrible scenes on daily basis, experiencing these horrible events. And also, some people who went through this do not want to remember… want to forget what happened. This I think might lead to unresolved soul trauma. Could all these experiences in past life manifest in current life carrying the echo of such qualities as numb feelings and disabling of memory?

 

[Laura]

Probably only those with soul potential get angsty about whether or not they are an OP. OPs are sure they aren't and come up with all kinds of reasons to back it up. Why? Because only those with soul potential have the ability to "see themselves" from an "outside" perspective and question who "that person" is and why "that person" does what he does. The OP does not have this capacity to really see themselves. Certainly, OPs can be as interested in "conspiracies" as anyone, perhaps moreso and to the exclusion of real work on the self.