Opinions

"I heard in on the news (tv) so it must be true."

"Oh, you read it on the computer. That stuff is all put up there by crazy people."

"I'm not going to change my diet, you can see that they are telling you that what we were told about things you eat being good for you is now being said to be bad for you so I'm just going to continue to eat what I want. You can't believe them."
 
One of the most terrifying (no pun intended) is the opinion of "terrorist"...

From Wikipedia- definition of the word terrorist (bold face mine)
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).[citation needed]

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[4]

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).[8][9]

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[10] One form is the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.[11]

What I am getting at is the opinion of who a terrorist is. And it is so loosely utilized to bring fear to the people that it styfiles the thought process enabling a clear fact based idea. Yes flying a plane into the World Trade Center was a terrorist act, but who were the actual terrorists behind it. So a political governing body can call a group of people terrorists, without backing it up with facts and then go and try to anhilate these said terrorists, with just cause.

Then their are people like Glenn Beck from Foxx news who propagate their opinions saying that their opinions are facts and this is what is happening to "us" people. Here is an example of how a person who has some facts, can turn it around and use it to formulate his damaging opinion.
In this segment he starts to read from a tests that is given to students in the New York City school system. The two questions are based on historic facts. Then compares it to the NYC Islamic center's location as a symbol for "substituting of one religion by the other" Not quite sure how he got there? See for yourself if you like, it is only around 2 minutes long.

August 24, 2010 6:59 pm ET
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008240048

This type of opinionated person can cause a lot of damage to the people that follow his broadcasts. He has a very large fan base. Hey my parents get all their facts & info from him. Can not have a rational discussion with them cause they believe he is the word. They came a long way from being Rush Limbaugh fans, who they now see as a sensationalist. They just switched channels instead of gaining any insight. They believe Glenn Beck's opinion that President Obama was not born in the US even though there is a documented birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.

Here is more on Glenn Beck if you so choose to see the lunacy of his opinions & statements.
http://www.thedemocratichub.com/glenn-beck.aspx
 
Hi everyone,

interesting topic.

I think we should to be careful about over analyzing what people say or do. That is, attaching more meaning or intent than actually exists or intended.
Not everyone is closed minded when they say IMO.

Why?

When i say IMO, its for several possible reasons:

1) I dont want to give the impression that i have proof or evidence.
It may simply be a theory i developed based on any combination of: experience, observation, calculation, guess work, heresay, or unsubstantiated research.
Its therefore a common phrase used for this purpose. Other people may use it as a throw away line to end an argument (as is the crux of this topic) but i certainly dont.

2) I also use it to present a non-threatening or commanding stance. That is, i'm stating that i 'think' this may be the case but am not sure, therefore i invite you to put forward your thoughts (& hopefully evidence) that either corroborates my proposition or negates it. Either response is good because debate may ensue to hopefully 'work out' the truth even though there may not be 'facts' to support propositions.

Yes everyone has a 'right' to their own opinion, but that is merely a civilized society's legal & moral position. No more no less.

All the best . :)
 
Rob said:
Hi everyone,

interesting topic.

I think we should to be careful about over analyzing what people say or do. That is, attaching more meaning or intent than actually exists or intended.
Not everyone is closed minded when they say IMO.

Why?

When i say IMO, its for several possible reasons:

1) I dont want to give the impression that i have proof or evidence.
It may simply be a theory i developed based on any combination of: experience, observation, calculation, guess work, heresay, or unsubstantiated research.
Its therefore a common phrase used for this purpose. Other people may use it as a throw away line to end an argument (as is the crux of this topic) but i certainly dont.

2) I also use it to present a non-threatening or commanding stance. That is, i'm stating that i 'think' this may be the case but am not sure, therefore i invite you to put forward your thoughts (& hopefully evidence) that either corroborates my proposition or negates it. Either response is good because debate may ensue to hopefully 'work out' the truth even though there may not be 'facts' to support propositions.

Yes everyone has a 'right' to their own opinion, but that is merely a civilized society's legal & moral position. No more no less.

All the best . :)

Rob, did you read the whole thread?
 
How about
- all things come to those who wait
- America, the land of the free.
- eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight

With regard to the "light at the end of the tunnel" saying, my father used to say - you want to make sure that light isn't a train coming .....
 
No Anart, i didnt read the whole thread, just various chunks of it. Some excerpts r too extensive to review in the time available unfortunately.

My 'opinion' was in response to some of the comments made throughout this topic (mostly during the first 5 pages), not near the end.
 
Rob said:
No Anart, i didnt read the whole thread, just various chunks of it. Some excerpts r too extensive to review in the time available unfortunately.

My 'opinion' was in response to some of the comments made throughout this topic (mostly during the first 5 pages), not near the end.

I didn't think you had because your post really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's a very valuable thread, so if you get the time, it's worth the read.
 
From what i have read so far Anart it seems that my post is relevant to at least some of the posts as well as the main topic, which is about 'Opinions' purporting to be 'facts', either unintentionally, negligently, or sometimes for malicious intent. I am not however disputing that there is much to gain from reading every single post, but rather that i have read enough to comment on at least some of the posts which seem to have the same theme. Though i stand to be corrected.


Take for example this persons post:

One that bugs me is the notion of equality:

"All men (and sometimes women are included in this too) are created equal."

Well, no, people are not "created" equal... Yet this opinion persists in many modern ideologies causing much pain for others. In fact this is a pretty dangerous belief/opinion to have in a world dominated by pathologicals. Assuming everybody is of equal psychological makeup can really destroy one's sense of judgement when dealing with a psychopath.

This notion even seeps into the world of the spirit where everybody is believed to have a soul.

When i first heard this 'equality' quote from a president (or some such) many yrs ago, i did NOt take it to mean everyone is born physically/mentally or situationally equal, but rather that under the eyes of the law we 'should' have the same basic rights & responsibilities as everyone else, whether rich or poor, etc. But beyond the basic level it is up each person to achieve what they want from life & should be free to do so without unlawful hindrance from the state or individuals. And if some people don't have their basic rights respected or responsibilities enforced then something is wrong somewhere, either with the law, state, or individual/s - which needs to be addressed.

I interpreted the statement from a positive 'human rights or legal' stance rather than a 'physical or actual/reality' stance taken by the poster. EG, black people were not equal to whites under the law in times past, but should have been.

We cant know who is correct unless the president explains what he meant. But my point though is there is not enough evidence or facts from the statement alone to determine what the president meant. However if i remember the context correctly then my interpretation is likely to be correct.

And that, is my original post's point, that we have to be careful about interpreting quotes or sentences. It is easy to attach more meaning than was intended or to use it in the wrong context, or based on our biases, etc. Word & phrases r very easily misinterpreted unless sufficient context is provided. There does NOT have to be a conspiracy pushing every statement.

:)

PS i try to preview but it is only 1 line. How can i expand it?
ta
Rob
 
Or take this post for another example:

In 1a, we see that an opinion is always subjective even if, by accident, it
MIGHT be objective. It is formed entirely within the mind of the person,
shaped and colored by that person's programming and reading instrument
distortions.

So here, "opinion" is a dangerous thing to have; and I mean dangerous for
the individual because it is an instrument of blindness.

In 1b we see that opinion as related to "approval" of some thing or idea, or
esteem of same, is closely connected to WISHFUL THINKING.

Again, an "opinion" and the "right to have one" is again, dangerous to the
individual.

In 2 a and b we see the same problems as in 1a and b with the additional
explanation that an opinion is based on belief rather than positive
knowledge of something. Thus it becomes a deeper trap of subjectivity and
wishful thinking.

Item 3 is not applicable here because it is a technical term, though
certainly it can be imbued with all of the above.

So, where did the idea come from that "everyone is entitled to their own
opinion" ? It begins to sound paramoralistic; a cheap shot at "democracy."

I agree that 'opinions' can be misused or abused, like any 'concept', but that doesn't mean the opinions r bad or incorrect in their own right.

In my way of thinking 'opinions' r merely theories, ie thoughts/ideas that do not yet have any or enough facts or evidence to be substantiated but may only be based on personal experience (for example). And as long as opinions aren't portrayed as 'fact' then i see nothing wrong with them. Sometimes (in fact many times) opinions/theories r all we have until research & analysis is conducted.

So in this context everyone IS entitled to their own opinion. But like a gun can be misused.

I understand the examples Laura described, i am simply saying it doesn't apply every time someone proffers their 'opinion'. ;D
 
Rob said:
From what i have read so far Anart it seems that my post is relevant to at least some of the posts as well as the main topic, which is about 'Opinions' purporting to be 'facts', either unintentionally, negligently, or sometimes for malicious intent. I am not however disputing that there is much to gain from reading every single post, but rather that i have read enough to comment on at least some of the posts which seem to have the same theme. Though i stand to be corrected.


Take for example this persons post:

One that bugs me is the notion of equality:

"All men (and sometimes women are included in this too) are created equal."

Well, no, people are not "created" equal... Yet this opinion persists in many modern ideologies causing much pain for others. In fact this is a pretty dangerous belief/opinion to have in a world dominated by pathologicals. Assuming everybody is of equal psychological makeup can really destroy one's sense of judgement when dealing with a psychopath.

This notion even seeps into the world of the spirit where everybody is believed to have a soul.

When i first heard this 'equality' quote from a president (or some such) many yrs ago, i did NOt take it to mean everyone is born physically/mentally or situationally equal, but rather that under the eyes of the law we 'should' have the same basic rights & responsibilities as everyone else, whether rich or poor, etc. But beyond the basic level it is up each person to achieve what they want from life & should be free to do so without unlawful hindrance from the state or individuals. And if some people don't have their basic rights respected or responsibilities enforced then something is wrong somewhere, either with the law, state, or individual/s - which needs to be addressed.

I interpreted the statement from a positive 'human rights or legal' stance rather than a 'physical or actual/reality' stance taken by the poster. EG, black people were not equal to whites under the law in times past, but should have been.
Hi Rob,
Are you familiar with ponerology and the work of Dr Lobaczewski? A lot of discussion on this forum is based on his work - so a search will bring up a many interesting threads in different contexts which discusses his work. A separate Ponerology website is also there with more info.
Taking the example that you have used above, you have interpreted a quote in a way that is going to be acceptable to normal people with a conscience - a corrective interpretation in other words. One could easily say that "all men should have the same basic rights under law" instead of saying "all men are created equal". The two statements are nowhere close to being equal.
Here is a quote from Laura in a different thread quoting Lobaczewski (emphases mine)
[quote author=Political Ponerology]
Schizoidia: Schizoidia, or schizoidal psychopathy, was isolated by the very first of the famous creators of modern psychiatry. From the beginning, it was treated as a lighter form of the same hereditary taint which is the cause of susceptibility to schizophrenia. However, this latter connection could neither be confirmed nor denied with the help of statistical analysis, and no biological test was then found which would have been able to solve this dilemma. For practical reasons, we shall discuss schizoidia with no further reference to this traditional relationship.

Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly, whose existence can be attributed either to changes in the genetic factor or to differences in other individual characteristics of a non-pathological nature. Let us thus sketch these sub-species’ common features.

Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, while, at the same time, pay little attention to the feelings of others. They tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions. They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. Their impoverished psychological worldview makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.” Let us call this typical expression the “schizoid declaration”.

Human nature does in fact tend to be naughty, especially when the schizoids embitter other people’s lives. When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid’s failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses.

The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotion and lack of feeling for the psychological realities, an essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to some incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which works as though founded on shifting sand. Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity, but because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people.

The quantitative frequency of this anomaly varies among races and nations: low among Blacks, the highest among Jews. Estimates of this frequency range from negligible up to 3 %. In Poland it may be estimated as 0.7 % of population. My observations suggest this anomaly is autosomally hereditary.

A schizoid’s ponerological activity should be evaluated in two aspects. On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever and unscrupulous individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising children. Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper” – i.e. “black or white” - transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their ponerogenic role can have macrosocial implications if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions.
In spite of their typical deficits, or even an openly schizoidal declaration, their readers do not realize what the authors’ characters are really like. Ignorant of the true condition of the author, such uninformed readers thed to interpret such works in a manner corresponding to their own nature. The minds of normal people tend toward corrective interpretation due to the participation of their own richer, psychological world view.

At the same time, many other readers critically reject such works with moral disgust but without being aware of the specific cause.
{...}

Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who then begin to feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features. If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances generally just consider them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society on a wide scale and for a long time.

The conviction that Karl Marx is the best example of this is correct as he was the best-known figure of that kind. Frostig , a psychiatrist of the old school, included Engels and others into a category he called “bearded schizoidal fanatics”. The famous writings attributed to “Zionist Wise Men” at the turn of the century begin with a typically schizoidal declaration. The nineteenth century, especially its latter half, appears to have been a time of exceptional activity on the part of schizoidal individuals, often but not always of Jewish descent. After all we have to remember that 97 % of all Jews do not manifest this anomaly, and that it also appears among all European nations, albeit to a markedly lesser extent. Our inheritance from this period includes world-images, scientific traditions, and legal concepts flavored with the shoddy ingredients of a schizoidal apprehension of reality.

Humanists are prepared to understand that era and its legacy within categories characterized by their own traditions. They search for societal, ideational, and moral causes for known phenomena. Such an explanation, however, can never constitute the whole truth, since it ignores the biological factors which participated in the genesis of the phenomena. Schizoidia is the most frequent factor, albeit not the only one.

In spite of the fact that the writings of schizoidal authors contain the above described deficiency, or even an openly formulated schizoidal declaration which constitutes sufficient warning to specialists, the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should consider seriously based on his convictions and his reason. That is the first mistake.

The oversimplified pattern of ideas, devoid of psychological color and based on easily available data, tends to exert an intense attracting influence on individuals who are insufficiently critical, frequently frustrated as result of downward social adjustment, culturally neglected, or characterized by some psychological deficiencies of their own. Such writings are particularly attractive to a hystericized society. Others who may read such writings will be immediately provoked to criticism based on their healthy common sense, though they also they fail to grasp the essential cause of the error: that it emerges from a biologically deviant mind.

Societal interpretation of such writings and doctrinaire declarations breaks down into main trifurcations, engendering divisiveness and conflict. The first branch is the path of aversion, based on rejection of the contents of the work due to personal motivations, differing convictions, or moral revulsion. These reactions contain the component of a moralistic interpretation of pathological phenomena.

The second and third branches relate to two distinctly different apperception types among those persons who accept the contents of such works: the critically-corrective and the pathological.
The critically-corrective approach is taken by people whose feel for psychological reality is normal and they tend to incorporate the more valuable elements of the work. They then trivialize the obvious errors and fill in the missing elements of the schizoid deficiencies by means of their own richer world view. This gives rise to a more sensible, measured, and thus creative interpretation, but is cannot be completely free from the influence of the error frequently adduced above.

Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with psychological deficiencies of their own: diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why this scope is wider than the circle drawn by direct action of pathological factors. Pathological acceptance of schizoidal writings or declarations by other deviants often brutalizes the authors’ concepts and promotes ideas of force and revolutionary means.

The passage of time and bitter experience has unfortunately not prevented this characteristic misunderstanding born of schizoid nineteenth-century creativity, with Marx’s works at the fore, from affecting people and depriving them of their common sense.
[/quote]
 
Based on my reading of the thread, I get that an opinion is more like:

a string of words that serve to intoxicate the intellect into a 'feel good' stupor to avoid the pain of mentation as an opiate serves to intoxicate the physical into a 'feel good' state to avoid the pain of understanding the message (that would allow addressing the real cause of the pain, if possible).

Perhaps it's a buffer to avoid realizing one intends to not do anything about the situation(s)?.
 
Thanks obyvatel for the info, i'll read when i get home from work. :)



Based on my reading of the thread, I get that an opinion is more like:

a string of words that serve to intoxicate the intellect into a 'feel good' stupor to avoid the pain of mentation as an opiate serves to intoxicate the physical into a 'feel good' state to avoid the pain of understanding the message (that would allow addressing the real cause of the pain, if possible).

Perhaps it's a buffer to avoid realizing one intends to not do anything about the situation(s)?.

Bud, your 'definition' of opinion is one scenario that occurs to varying degrees in some, maybe all people (sometimes), but it does not occur for every opinion.
I should only speak for myself, rather what i suspect applies to most people, so in my case my 'opinions' r rarely if ever a 'feel good' motivator, even if a resultant feeling of satisfaction or relief did occur after i have been struggling to find a solution to some question. It is a result not a cause.
But these feelings r insignificant in my quest for the truth, hence i constantly ask people for 'their' opinions, thoughts, or scientific knowledge to either corroborate or correct my theories. i read books, search info from wherever i can. My opinions therefore change all the time based on what i find.

I agree with you & the definitions on this post about 'opinions', about how they can "intoxicate the intellect", or be used by secret org's to their own devious ends, by uncritical people who simply accept the 'norm', or by people who simply dont like to think for themselves, etc etc.

These & all the other scenarios mentioned in this forum r in my opinion correct (ie they make sense to me without having seen the scientific or research data to corroborate them). But that doesn't mean every opinion made is from one of these scenarios. I know this because i have many opinions. I believe aliens exist for eg, because of the statistical probabilities that even common sense provides, let alone what scientists have mentioned. But it is still an opinion because i have not met an alien so i cannot prove my opinion/theory. there is no malice in my opinion, no desire to subvert or to force others to accept my opinion, & no mental or neurotic issues associated with it either.

As i said earlier, opinions like guns r harmless on their own, & if treated with respect, but misuse or abuse opinion & u achieve any of the scenarios the posters have mentioned. :)
 
The thrust of this thread is that when seeking the truth the only thing that matters is that which can be established as objectively true by the weight of the evidence. If objectively true, then it's true regardless if it is believed or not.

Acquiring this kind of knowledge can't be done without the seeker being able to suspend beliefs.

[QUOTE author=thefreedictionary.com]Opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof [/QUOTE]

Rob, your recent posts read that your approach to the thread was only to support your opinion about opinions, rather than to achieve an understanding of what is written, then you offer more opinions about the thread!

One doesn't enter a baseball game with a helmet and football.
 
Rob, your recent posts read that your approach to the thread was only to support your opinion about opinions, rather than to achieve an understanding of what is written, then you offer more opinions about the thread!

One doesn't enter a baseball game with a helmet and football.

exactly, you are doing the exact opposite of what was already discussed. You are adding your opinions, as if they somehow are the right interpretation of what opinions are(in your view). And then you added your interpretation of it, by adding your own opinion to others people post about opinions.

This is similar to what happen with Gurdjieff and ouspensky. Ouspensky incorporated his opinions about Gurdjieff and it overall distorted his view of Gurdjieff. and it seems like you are adding your opinions on what opinions are which, eventually leds the distortion of what opinions "actually are".

And then, most interestingly, at the end, Ouspensky uses the word again,
ascribing "opinions" to Gurdjieff when, in fact, it was an OPINION of
Ouspensky's that he could not let go of that he was entitled to his opinion
which led to the distortion of his view of Gurdjieff!



Quote
But my personal position in G.'s work began to change. For a whole year
something had been accumulating and I gradually began to see that there were
many things I could not understand and that I had to go. This may appear
strange and unexpected after all I have written so far, but it had
accumulated gradually. I wrote that I had for some time begun to separate G.
and the ideas. I had no doubts about the ideas. On the contrary, the more I
thought of them, the deeper I entered into them, the more I began to value
them and realize their significance. But I began very strongly to doubt that
it was possible for me, or even for the majority of our company, to continue
to work under G.'s leadership. I do not in the least mean that I found any
of G.'s actions or methods wrong or that they failed to respond to what I
expected. This would be strange and completely out of place in connection
with a leader in work, the esoteric nature of which I have admitted. The one
excludes the other. In work of such a nature there can be no sort of
criticism, no sort of "disagreement" with this or that person. On the
contrary, all work consists in doing what the leader indicates,
understanding in conformance with his opinions even those things that he
does not say plainly, helping him in everything that he does. There can be
no other attitude towards the work. And G. himself said several times that a
most important thing in the work was to remember that one came to learn and
to take no other role upon oneself.

And it is of course possible that a man who is beginning work will make a
mistake, will follow a leader such as he cannot follow for any distance. It
stands to reason that it is the task of the leader to see to it that people
do not begin to work with him for whom his methods or his special subjects
will always be alien, incomprehensible, and unattainable. But if this does
happen and if a man had begun to work with a leader whom he cannot follow,
then of course, having noticed and realized this, he ought to go and seek
another leader or work independently, if he is able to do so.

In regard to my relations with G. I saw clearly at that time that I had been
mistaken about many things that I had ascribed to G. and that by staying
with him now I should not be going in the same direction I went at the
beginning. And I thought that all the members of our small group, with very
few exceptions, were in the same or in a similar situation.

This was a very strange "observation" but it was absolutely a right one. I
had nothing to say against G.'s methods except that they did not suit me. A
very clear example came to my mind then. I had never had a negative attitude
towards the "way of the monk," to religious, mystical ways. At the same time
I could never have thought for one moment that such a way was possible for
me or suitable. And so, if after three years of work I perceived that G. was
leading us in fact towards the way of religion, of the monastery, and
required the observance of all religious forms and ceremonies, there would
be of course a motive for disagreeing with this and for going away, even
though at the risk of losing direct leadership. And certainly this would
not, at the same time, mean that I considered the religious way a wrong way
in general. It may even be a more correct way than my way but it is not my
way.
Notice that what Ouspensky describes is his OPINION of what he thought
Gurdjieff was doing. Looking back on things historically, we can see that
Ouspensky was WRONG. He came to that exact crossroad Gurdjieff described
and was unable to accept that his opinions were, effectively, programs, buffers:


Quote
"The most dangerous thing in this case is to rely on one's own judgment. If
a man is lucky he may at this time have someone near him who can tell him
where he is and where 'Ouspensky' is. But he must moreover trust this
person, because he will undoubtedly think that he understands everything
himself and that he knows where he is and where 'Ouspensky' is. And not only
in relation to himself but in relation also to other people will he think
that he knows and sees their 'Ouspenskys.' All this is of course self-
deception. At this stage a man can see nothing either in relation to
himself or to others. The more convinced he is that he can, the more he is
mistaken. But if he can be even to a slight extent sincere with himself and
really wants to know the truth, then he can find an exact and infallible
basis for judging rightly first about himself and then about other people.
But the whole point lies in being sincere with oneself. And this is by no
means easy. People do not understand that sincerity must be learned. They
imagine that to be sincere or not to be sincere depends upon their desire or
decision. But how can a man be sincere with himself when in actual fact he
sincerely does not see what he ought to see in himself? Someone has to show
it to him. And his attitude towards the person who shows him must be a right
one, that is, such as will help him to see what is shown him and not, as
often happens, hinder him if he begins to think that he already knows
better.

"This is a very serious moment in the work. A man who loses his direction at
this moment will never find it again afterwards. It must be remembered that
man such as he is does not possess the means of distinguishing 'I' and
'Ouspensky' in himself. Even if he tries to, he will lie to himself and
invent things, and he will never see himself as he really is. It must be
understood that without outside help a man can never see himself.
So, an interesting survey of OPINIONS.
 
Back
Top Bottom