Organic Portals: Human variation

[Laura]

Well, some researchers already use "primary psychopath" for the genetic kind and "secondary psychopath" for the "sociopath" that is not a genetic psychopath but rather "made" by circumstances. But neither of these addresses what Loabczewski seems to be calling the "Essential Psychopath." So, maybe we can use "primary psychopath" to refer to the genetic, defective OP type, and "Essential" to refer to the "possessed" type.

 

[Ruth]

It seems to me that it would take a great deal more than "chosing not to be" an OP in order to change into a non-OP.

What I meant by that is choosing not be behave like an OP.

This pretty much hits the nail on the head when it comes down to the problem I have with OP behaviour. Behaviour isn't indicative of OP-ness. After all, how does an OP behave? Does anyone know? And how do you measure this?

If they are able to mirror our upper chakras in effect, do you think they are actually copying us?

Behaviour on this planet is predominantly STS, not OP, we know the STS bit to be a fact and we cannot 'define' OP behaviour either. So it makes sense to me. The difference between an OP and a non-OP is to all intents and purposes, indecernable.

What is called OP 'behaviour' and STS behaviour need to be separated and not confused as being one and the same thing. Otherwise OPs end up being 'blamed' for everything that is STS...and we all end up as being OPs! Whether we are or not.

I believe OPs are stunted and restricted in most ways with the exception of their mechanical ability which should be in evidence in all areas of their lives and irrespective of their intellectual ability to think mechanically. This stuntedness must include their ability to be STS unless they are copying/mimicing someone of that ilk. Not surprisingly, if they were copying someone of a more STO nature, their ability to become individuated souls may improve dramatically or become faster.

Therefore, we should change - not them.... or.... we should change ourselves and they will follow....

Imo, all the 'best' bad guys have been, or are, souled STS and all the 'best' OPs are the human herd that just does nothing other than following mechanical 'rules', whatever those 'rules' are for the times in which they live. So, there may very well be two types of psychopath. One of each type.

 

[Guest]

Therefore, we should change - not them.... or.... we should change ourselves and they will follow....

Imo, all the 'best' bad guys have been, or are, souled STS and all the 'best' OPs are the human herd that just does nothing other than following mechanical 'rules', whatever those 'rules' are for the times in which they live. So, there may very well be two types of psychopath. One of each type.

In practical terms that seems to be an accurate assessment. It's probably best to look at the OP/non-OP issue in terms of those who are individualizing, because those are the ones who will want to network. So even if "spot the OP" is not the way to go about this, perhaps it is not wrong to "spot" the indivuating person, because it is only with those that another individuating person can relate and network.

And I agree, as these discussions pointed out time and again, that the PROBLEM is the psychopath, and that understanding the difference between essential and primary versions is important, as these are probably two different breeds of animal, so to speak. I would gather that one would have to deal with them in different ways.

 

[Nathan]

Just to clarify, I understand that a sociopath (secondary psychopath), one who is "made by circumstances", is different to an Essential (souled) Psychopath. The latter is not made by circumstance because they effectively choose the dark side, therefore they are made by choice. At some point in their life they chose to align themselves with STS. Is this a correct assessment?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Just to clarify, I understand that a sociopath (secondary psychopath), one who is "made by circumstances", is different to an Essential (souled) Psychopath. The latter is not made by circumstance because they effectively choose the dark side, therefore they are made by choice. At some point in their life they chose to align themselves with STS. Is this a correct assessment?

That's the impression I got of sociopaths as well (as secondary psychopaths, that is). Would characteropath, then, also be describing the same thing?

 

[Laura]

Well, the problem we run into here is that the "sociopath" or "secondary psychopath" is generally an individual who is so out of control that he or she ends up in prison pretty early in life. So I guess we need to think about this a bit and separate out the threads.

 

[Ruth]

Therefore, we should change - not them.... or.... we should change ourselves and they will follow....

Imo, all the 'best' bad guys have been, or are, souled STS and all the 'best' OPs are the human herd that just does nothing other than following mechanical 'rules', whatever those 'rules' are for the times in which they live. So, there may very well be two types of psychopath. One of each type.

In practical terms that seems to be an accurate assessment. It's probably best to look at the OP/non-OP issue in terms of those who are individualizing, because those are the ones who will want to network. So even if "spot the OP" is not the way to go about this, perhaps it is not wrong to "spot" the indivuating person, because it is only with those that another individuating person can relate and network.

A person on this planet can do anything they like from an STS perspective, as this is (mainly) the only perspective that is available to them. As long as we forget that we are looking at everything from this perspective, then the judgements made by us all will only happen biased by this much coloured and distorted perspective.

In short, becoming STO is better for 'dicernment' and puts the predators mind on 'quiet' or presses it's mute button.

It is my 'idea' that an STO individual would be able to 'work' and relate quite nicely with OPs! Some might describe this as 'networking', others, perhaps may see it more like sheperding or 'helping the herd' out. It simply wouldn't matter, as it is 'serving others' regardless of who they are. It is my belief that OPs are in fact a much simpler form of life than their non-OP counter-parts. And are therefore capable of much less damage than their non-OP counterparts.

The question all people need to ask themselves should perhaps be whether 'spotting the non-OP' (from an STS perspective) helpful or not? My guess is to first become STO might help. If a person had a good grounding in that, their interactions might be more beneficial. The other problem is that we don't really know what the difference between OP and non-OP is. And behaviour isn't a good indicator, because it can't be qualified or quantified to one 'type' or the other.

Another problem is: If a person is not able to 'spot' a simpler form of life (that is: an OP), then, how is one to 'spot' a non-OP? By behaviour? no?!! That wouldn't work in my opinion.

And I agree, as these discussions pointed out time and again, that the PROBLEM is the psychopath, and that understanding the difference between essential and primary versions is important, as these are probably two different breeds of animal, so to speak. I would gather that one would have to deal with them in different ways.

Yes, two different breeds of animal, just like OPs and non-OPs. But, of course, much more practically 'problematical'.... and dangerous. The least 'dangerous' animal, to me is the OP, followed by their more dangerous non-OPs cousins in their many individuated, unaware and out of control, STS forms.

The question you need to ask yourself - would you treat a dangerous animal any differently in order to minimise danger, because it was a different type of animal, or would you just react to minimise the danger? Is there a difference in how a person reacts which would be dependant on the 'type' of psychopath?

 

[Guest]

It is my 'idea' that an STO individual would be able to 'work' and relate quite nicely with OPs! Some might describe this as 'networking', others, perhaps may see it more like sheperding or 'helping the herd' out. It simply wouldn't matter, as it is 'serving others' regardless of who they are...

Sure, an STO Individual would be able to "work" quite nicely with OP's. But that "work" would have to be on the terms of the OP's. Technically an STO person can "serve" anyone, including STS. IMO, however, the STO person really seeks to serve the whole, the Universe in its unfoldment. And since serving STS would not serve the total unfoldment, it is usually avoided.

Similarly, the only help OP's would accept would be help on their terms, and to live in harmony in their way. And this way would have to take into account that the STO Individual (STOI) would have to avoid issues of individuation with those OP's, because that is not their way. Because the STOI would have to address OP's exclusively on their terms of acceptance and deny expression of the more profound aspects his/her individuated soul dynamic, she/he would be limited, if not inhibited in that interaction.

Of course, for the good of all this may be warranted. However, it is NOT networking, but a one-sided interaction catering to a certain status quo. Networking is a circulation of potential and capability where those involved use apply their potential to the maximum, IMO. Do beings of 3D network with beings of 2D? Do beings of 4D network with beings of 3D? The STOI may have many things to offer to the OP group, but what about feedback that would trigger greater "service potential" in the STOI?

Networking happens when elements combine to form a greater coherent system of freely interacting parts. The thing is that by respecting the freedom of the OP group, the STOI is never free to access their full service potential overall. That potential is stimulated with other people moving to individuation. So an STOI can help OP's greatly, but the latter cannot help the STOI to greater evolutionary potential beyond the terms of service.

I think a genuine STOI would make a poor "shepherd". The reason is the STOI does not assist unless asked, and is limited by what the group asks, while a shepherd must goad and manipulate the herd. True STO does not manipulate you, even for your own good. In truth, there is little an STOI can give OP's that they cannot provide for themselves. And there are many OP's with STO traits that can be competent guides for the harmony of the group.

That does not mean, however, that sometimes an Individual cannot be of help to such groups. Regarding extended networking...I don't think so.

The question all people need to ask themselves should perhaps be whether 'spotting the non-OP' (from an STS perspective) helpful or not? My guess is to first become STO might help. If a person had a good grounding in that, their interactions might be more beneficial. The other problem is that we don't really know what the difference between OP and non-OP is. And behaviour isn't a good indicator, because it can't be qualified or quantified to one 'type' or the other.

I would think the idea of "spotting" other people undergoing Individuation would be of tremendous help. Is this not what we are doing here? Are we not "spotting" individuating others in order to network in terms of individuation? And again STS/STO is not either/or in most people who are individuating. We are all in transition, and the point of spotting like-minded others is to facilitate that transition.

Otherwise such individuation would best occur in isolation, or under the "tutelage" of some STO "teacher", and "spotting" would only be done by such teachers. I don't think this is the way things are meant to work these days. We are all in this together, pulling ourselves by our bootstraps at the same time.

And by having people become STO first and then coming into "service", the more complex and profound processes of learning are denied. To BECOME STO one must learn, to learn one must interact, to interact one must discern, and part of that discernment is to know with whom one is interacting. We do not need more teachers to provide learning, we need to learn how to learn.

I don't know about you, but this thread has pretty much given me a good idea as to what is and what is not an OP in a very practical way. So to keep claiming the whole thread has come to little or no practical conclusion, is to refuse to absorb what it has to offer. There are 18 useful pages that cannot be condensed into a few lines. One has to absorb and ponder their meanings, and learn to apply it in one's own unique circumstances. One has to learn to absorb, learn to think about what is being absorbed, and learn to apply it. That learning is one's own responsibility.

Another problem is: If a person is not able to 'spot' a simpler form of life (that is: an OP), then, how is one to 'spot' a non-OP? By behaviour? no?!! That wouldn't work in my opinion.

A person is, however, able to "spot" themselves. If such a person is individuating and learns to know and understand themself, which is part and parcel of individuating, then a person can recognize compatible qualities in others. Like attracts like, and like can comprehend like. What you say is true if you do not have immediate individuation potential. And such an ability to recognize individuation in others rests on the ability to recognize individuation in oneself, which has nothing to do with spotting behavioural traits, IMO.

Yes, two different breeds of animal, just like OPs and non-OPs. But, of course, much more practically 'problematical'.... and dangerous. The least 'dangerous' animal, to me is the OP, followed by their more dangerous non-OPs cousins in their many individuated, unaware and out of control, STS forms.

Well, failed OP's are psychopathic, non-OP's can be psychopathic and there are obviously many types of psychopathy, characteropathy, sociopathy etc. As I think has been said before, psychopathy may emerge from OP's and non-OP's alike because it can potentially affect the full spectrum of humanity. As to "unaware" and "out of control", I would think Individuated psychopaths can be very aware and very much in control. That, IMO, would be what makes them very dangerous, their concentrated, calculating and conscious deliberation.

The question you need to ask yourself - would you treat a dangerous animal any differently in order to minimise danger, because it was a different type of animal, or would you just react to minimise the danger? Is there a difference in how a person reacts which would be dependant on the 'type' of psychopath?

Regarding the first question: What do you mean by "react", and by "treating differently"? I would think if the point was to minimize the danger, then all actions must be based on knowledge of the "animal", myself and the circumstances that brought me in hypothetical proximity with such an "animal". Thus I would have to learn not only "things", but the proper way to access and combine that knowledge corresponding to what I was confronting.

In other words, to address your second question, if there were no difference at all in how to deal each case of psychopathy, why bother making distinctions? If a psychopath was a psychopth was a psychopath, and that is all there was to it, it would be a very simple thing to recognize psychopathy and take simple measures to deal with it, and books like Ponerology could be condensed into one chapter. Yet even Ponerology is only scratching the surface of the matter.

Primarily, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as far as encountering psychopaths is concerned. As such, learning to recognize them in each and every form is part of dealing with the situation. If one is already being influenced, then also each virus has different antibodies that deal with it. Being immune to yesterday's flu does not mean you are immune to all flu viruses, although you CAN boost your immunity in general.

Again, in my opinion a simple "how to" manual will not work here. One needs to learn how to learn how to approach this issue first because there are not only categories here, but probably sub categories to the point that each and every case has its own unique aspects. Thus, one needs to creatively come up with solutions and improvise as the situation demands.

 

[Laura]

It is my 'idea' that an STO individual would be able to 'work' and relate quite nicely with OPs! Some might describe this as 'networking', others, perhaps may see it more like sheperding or 'helping the herd' out. It simply wouldn't matter, as it is 'serving others' regardless of who they are...

Sure, an STO Individual would be able to "work" quite nicely with OP's. But that "work" would have to be on the terms of the OP's. Technically an STO person can "serve" anyone, including STS. IMO, however, the STO person really seeks to serve the whole, the Universe in its unfoldment. And since serving STS would not serve the total unfoldment, it is usually avoided.

Amen. We have tried a few experiments along that line with individuals we are strongly persuaded are of that ilk and believe me, it has never worked. By their nature, they drain a person if you have any interaction that is more than casual. And even then, you have to keep close watch... That in itself is draining.

Similarly, the only help OP's would accept would be help on their terms, and to live in harmony in their way. And this way would have to take into account that the STO Individual (STOI) would have to avoid issues of individuation with those OP's, because that is not their way. Because the STOI would have to address OP's exclusively on their terms of acceptance and deny expression of the more profound aspects his/her individuated soul dynamic, she/he would be limited, if not inhibited in that interaction.

Exactly our experience. It is enormously draining. And once you get drained to a certain point, your brain gets fuddled, then you make mistakes, get deeper in the pit, get drained even more. Then it ends up being unpleasant on both sides to disconnect. Not worth the grief. Just keep it casual and distant if you suspect.

Of course, for the good of all this may be warranted. However, it is NOT networking, but a one-sided interaction catering to a certain status quo. Networking is a circulation of potential and capability where those involved use apply their potential to the maximum, IMO. Do beings of 3D network with beings of 2D? Do beings of 4D network with beings of 3D? The STOI may have many things to offer to the OP group, but what about feedback that would trigger greater "service potential" in the STOI?

Networking happens when elements combine to form a greater coherent system of freely interacting parts. The thing is that by respecting the freedom of the OP group, the STOI is never free to access their full service potential overall. That potential is stimulated with other people moving to individuation. So an STOI can help OP's greatly, but the latter cannot help the STOI to greater evolutionary potential beyond the terms of service.

I agree. Thanks for putting it in words for all of us.

I think a genuine STOI would make a poor "shepherd". The reason is the STOI does not assist unless asked, and is limited by what the group asks, while a shepherd must goad and manipulate the herd. True STO does not manipulate you, even for your own good. In truth, there is little an STOI can give OP's that they cannot provide for themselves. And there are many OP's with STO traits that can be competent guides for the harmony of the group.

Not only that, but the OP doesn't seem to be able to really "ask." At least not for anything that the souled individual really has to offer.

That does not mean, however, that sometimes an Individual cannot be of help to such groups. Regarding extended networking...I don't think so.

That pretty well sums it up. STO gives ALL to those that ASK, but being able to ASK is the tricky part.

The question all people need to ask themselves should perhaps be whether 'spotting the non-OP' (from an STS perspective) helpful or not? My guess is to first become STO might help. If a person had a good grounding in that, their interactions might be more beneficial. The other problem is that we don't really know what the difference between OP and non-OP is. And behaviour isn't a good indicator, because it can't be qualified or quantified to one 'type' or the other.

I would think the idea of "spotting" other people undergoing Individuation would be of tremendous help. Is this not what we are doing here? Are we not "spotting" individuating others in order to network in terms of individuation? And again STS/STO is not either/or in most people who are individuating. We are all in transition, and the point of spotting like-minded others is to facilitate that transition.

Exactly. And, as Gurdjieff said, it is in the realm of the "confusion of tongues" that some people begin to become aware of this lack of ability to communcate at the deeper levels and begin to long for it and seek it out and search for ways to overcome the "confusion."

In a certain sense, it may not really matter whether one is an OP or not, what matters is if one is networked with one's own kind, whatever that may imply, entail, or be. Mouravieff points out that a group of colinear individuals can, when networked properly, effectively function as a 4 D being in their perceptions and actions. So if we have any hope of dealing with the problems of this world being under the negative control of 4 D critters (which is probable), then it is only as networked, colinear groups we will be able to accomplish anything. And that is why there is so much effort from the "other side" to create and extend confusion and discord. Without the ability to see and understand in the same way, and act (and this does NOT mean like a "hive" mind), we have no hope.

People can be completely different in nature, talents, modes of perception, likes, dislikes, etc, and still be heading in the same direction, having the same goals.

Otherwise such individuation would best occur in isolation, or under the "tutelage" of some STO "teacher", and "spotting" would only be done by such teachers. I don't think this is the way things are meant to work these days. We are all in this together, pulling ourselves by our bootstraps at the same time.

Exactly. We are all we've got, for all intents and purposes.

And by having people become STO first and then coming into "service", the more complex and profound processes of learning are denied. To BECOME STO one must learn, to learn one must interact, to interact one must discern, and part of that discernment is to know with whom one is interacting. We do not need more teachers to provide learning, we need to learn how to learn.

Exactly. As the C's say, you don't have to learn the lessons of 4th grade to go there, you only have to have learned the lessons of 3rd grade. And they pointed out that the most important of these are the lessons of interactions, relationships, discernment as you have described above. That seems to be the main thing that is at the root of the ills of this planet and very few people seem to be really noticing this and giving it the attention it deserves. They all want to do calculus before they can add. They want to "ascend" by contemplating their navel instead of having to do the dirty work of working their way through the lessons and making some often unpleasant choices.

I don't know about you, but this thread has pretty much given me a good idea as to what is and what is not an OP in a very practical way. So to keep claiming the whole thread has come to little or no practical conclusion, is to refuse to absorb what it has to offer. There are 18 useful pages that cannot be condensed into a few lines. One has to absorb and ponder their meanings, and learn to apply it in one's own unique circumstances. One has to learn to absorb, learn to think about what is being absorbed, and learn to apply it. That learning is one's own responsibility.

I agree. I think we'll have to take a lot of it and put it into a book with multiple authors!!!

Another problem is: If a person is not able to 'spot' a simpler form of life (that is: an OP), then, how is one to 'spot' a non-OP? By behaviour? no?!! That wouldn't work in my opinion.

A person is, however, able to "spot" themselves. If such a person is individuating and learns to know and understand themself, which is part and parcel of individuating, then a person can recognize compatible qualities in others. Like attracts like, and like can comprehend like. What you say is true if you do not have immediate individuation potential. And such an ability to recognize individuation in others rests on the ability to recognize individuation in oneself, which has nothing to do with spotting behavioural traits, IMO.

Agreed. It is a maxim of esoteric work that the lower can never comprehend the higher.

Yes, two different breeds of animal, just like OPs and non-OPs. But, of course, much more practically 'problematical'.... and dangerous. The least 'dangerous' animal, to me is the OP, followed by their more dangerous non-OPs cousins in their many individuated, unaware and out of control, STS forms.

Well, failed OP's are psychopathic, non-OP's can be psychopathic and there are obviously many types of psychopathy, characteropathy, sociopathy etc. As I think has been said before, psychopathy may emerge from OP's and non-OP's alike because it can potentially affect the full spectrum of humanity. As to "unaware" and "out of control", I would think Individuated psychopaths can be very aware and very much in control. That, IMO, would be what makes them very dangerous, their concentrated, calculating and conscious deliberation.

Yes, and that is one of the main reasons to study the matter closely and attentively. If an OP is, in many respects, just a "paler version" of a psychopath (having a primitive emotional center only makes it more difficult to discern), then studying the whole spectrum of manifestations is probably the most important thing a person can do in "3rd grade."

The question you need to ask yourself - would you treat a dangerous animal any differently in order to minimise danger, because it was a different type of animal, or would you just react to minimise the danger? Is there a difference in how a person reacts which would be dependant on the 'type' of psychopath?

Regarding the first question: What do you mean by "react", and by "treating differently"? I would think if the point was to minimize the danger, then all actions must be based on knowledge of the "animal", myself and the circumstances that brought me in hypothetical proximity with such an "animal". Thus I would have to learn not only "things", but the proper way to access and combine that knowledge corresponding to what I was confronting.

Exactly. You treat a dangerous snake a lot differently than you treat a dangerous grizzly bear or crocodile. There can be a WORLD of difference.

In other words, to address your second question, if there were no difference at all in how to deal each case of psychopathy, why bother making distinctions? If a psychopath was a psychopth was a psychopath, and that is all there was to it, it would be a very simple thing to recognize psychopathy and take simple measures to deal with it, and books like Ponerology could be condensed into one chapter. Yet even Ponerology is only scratching the surface of the matter.

You can say that again!

Primarily, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as far as encountering psychopaths is concerned. As such, learning to recognize them in each and every form is part of dealing with the situation. If one is already being influenced, then also each virus has different antibodies that deal with it. Being immune to yesterday's flu does not mean you are immune to all flu viruses, although you CAN boost your immunity in general.

Again, in my opinion a simple "how to" manual will not work here. One needs to learn how to learn how to approach this issue first because there are not only categories here, but probably sub categories to the point that each and every case has its own unique aspects. Thus, one needs to creatively come up with solutions and improvise as the situation demands.

I agree. And we need to do this and assemble these thoughts for the benefit of others at some point.

 

[Mr. Premise]

I think EQ and Laura just summed everything in this thread very well, so here is something tangential.

While reading it (and overhearing a comment by a likely-OP co-worker) I just thought of something. It would be interesting to map political polling onto OP and STS/STOI spectrum. It seems, for example, that Bush collapse in the polls in the last year since Katrina, can be attributed in part to losing OP's. Since they tend to go with the heard, he was able to hang onto them through the 2004 election just well enough to keep it close enough to steal. But once the balance shifts decisively, all the indecisive, go-with-the-crowd types can turn against Bush. It seems like now in the U.S. being "against Bush" is OK for people to admit proudly in a way it wasn't three years ago.

Now I wonder if the top-level political consultants have their own terms that we could map onto our terminology. I will never forget seeing the spell cast over OP-types in a post Bush-Gore debate in 2000, the one where Gore did the best. It was exactly like watching someone who was put in a hypnotic trance. During the debate, Bush at one point spoke in a monotone and rocked slowly back and forth. It was bizarre and made me wonder if his handlers had some pretty high-level knowledge they were using to manipulate.

 

[Guest]

I agree. And we need to do this and assemble these thoughts for the benefit of others at some point.

I'll tell you what: going through threads like this and Durand's "Crisis of the Republic" felt as if I was reading modern day Platonic Dialogues. It is a literal unfolding of a revelation, a revealing of things quite profound, and so basic at the same time that if they can be communicated in an organized and editied form it would take this knowledge to the next level (as touched upon in Don's post above), where minds can begin to think in terms of real-time effective application in ways as yet to be discovered.

Personally, I think think the effect of this knowledge is progressive with new layers built over previous ones that can in turn become foundations for what is to come. And it is these new foundations resulting from the progression/evolution of the knowledge that can provide the context to structure solutions where there was only confusion before.

That's why I agree that you cannot do calculus without basic math (even if it is calculus that you think will solve your problem). Not only that but when you don't know basic math you also don't have much of a clue as to what calculus can do for you let alone how to apply it. You only have stories about calculus, and it's certainly not the same.

Otherwise, trying to live on the Penthouse of a bulding where the foundations haven't been yet laid is an exercise in futility. Imagine debating about something like that, where the arguments would be that we need to learn to fly or levitate or walk on air, and all those debating would wail at the impossibility of living at such a height.

And then someone practical finally comes along and proposes that things are much easier if people simply build something floor by floor until they reach the intended height. I guess, however, humanity may have tried it once, and was struck down and "punished" for it. The "Tower of Babel" I think it was called...

 

[Ruth]

It seems, for example, that Bush collapse in the polls in the last year since Katrina, can be attributed in part to losing OP's. Since they tend to go with the heard, he was able to hang onto them through the 2004 election just well enough to keep it close enough to steal.

I got thinking about OPs in terms of Maslows Hierachy of Needs
Maslows Hierachy goes something like this:
1. physical survival needs: water, food, sleep, health, exercise, sex
2. safety: physical safety, ecconomic security, freedom from threats, comfort, peace
3. love: acceptance, group membership, association with successful team, love and affection
4. esteem: important projects, recognition of strength, intelligence, pesteige and status
5. self actualisation: challenging projects, opportunities for innovation and creativity, learning at a high level.

Imo, OPs only need to have their first three needs and if these are met they are happy, in the belief that all their needs are being met (and for an OP they probably are, but for a non-OP this probably wouldn't be the case and they would then go and seek to have needs 4 & 5 met).

Should anything happen to challenge these first three needs being met, and the OPs concerned can't be lied to or deceived about what's really happening - most can, as they believe what they're told without question - Or a scapegoat can't be found to blame a negative situation on, then OPs will remove their support for the people 'running the show'.

It is important to be able to deceive OPs about reality, because a pissed off herd can truly turn on it's tormentors and Bush and co. may find themselves doing something along the lines of what they do in Pamplona for the annual San Fermin festival.
http://www.learnersonline.com/weekly/lessons02/week27/index.htm
Yeah, I'd like to see that!

Imo opinion, if you want to "help" an OP, a person will be most successful if they look to the first 3 steps in Maslows Hierachy. These will be the only things that really concern OPs. Recognising what's missing and helping an OP find what is missing is probably the best help that anyone can give them.

Then, of course there is the undeceiving business. Once undeceived, OPs can be a powerful force for change, some of it violent though, unfortunately.

 

[Saman]

[...]

Maslows Hierachy goes something like this:
1. physical survival needs: water, food, sleep, health, exercise, sex
2. safety: physical safety, ecconomic security, freedom from threats, comfort, peace
3. love: acceptance, group membership, association with successful team, love and affection
4. esteem: important projects, recognition of strength, intelligence, pesteige and status
5. self actualisation: challenging projects, opportunities for innovation and creativity, learning at a high level.

Imo, OPs only need to have their first three needs and if these are met they are happy, in the belief that all their needs are being met (and for an OP they probably are, but for a non-OP this probably wouldn't be the case and they would then go and seek to have needs 4 & 5 met).

Hi Ruth, All,

I think all of the above criteria in what you're referring to as Maslow's Hierarchy of needs are concerned with a man of contemporary life whether an OP or not, that is a man who is still caught in the illusive cycles of everyday life and unconcerned and unaware of the "third man" behind the 'curtain', and hence, a man who acts predominately in regards to the concerns and needs of their 'inner dog', so to speak.

Should anything happen to challenge these first three needs being met, and the OPs concerned can't be lied to or deceived about what's really happening - most can, as they believe what they're told without question - Or a scapegoat can't be found to blame a negative situation on, then OPs will remove their support for the people 'running the show'.

It is important to be able to deceive OPs about reality, because a pissed off herd can truly turn on it's tormentors and Bush and co. may find themselves doing something along the lines of what they do in Pamplona for the annual San Fermin festival.
http://www.learnersonline.com/weekly/lessons02/week27/index.htm
Yeah, I'd like to see that!

Imo opinion, if you want to "help" an OP, a person will be most successful if they look to the first 3 steps in Maslows Hierarchy. These will be the only things that really concern OPs. Recognizing what's missing and helping an OP find what is missing is probably the best help that anyone can give them.

Then, of course there is the undeceiving business. Once undeceived, OPs can be a powerful force for change, some of it violent though, unfortunately.

A person can act like an OP due to still allowing the 'inner dog' to "run the show" within and yet still be a "potentially fully souled" Being; therefore, if there is any hope for a "potentially fully souled" Being to awaken through the actualizing of their potential, then Giving when only Asked is the "key" to such individuals, and it should be DOne due to accordance of one's 'aim' regardless pf Maslow's Hierarchy of needs due the fact that a "potentially fully souled" can still act like an OP and vice versa, that is, both can be concerned only with mechanical everyday life and nothing else due to being hypnotized by the "third man" behind the 'curtain'. Moreover, some of the terms listed in Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, i.e. "love" or "self actualization" can specifically be related to the REAL Life of Man depending on one's specific interpretation of these terms, or they can be specifically related to contemporary love and contemporary self actualization, and hence, be specifically interpreted to being of everyday mechanical life.

Therefore, your presumption that OP's need to have only the three needs of this Maslow's Hierarchy fulfilled is open to interpretation of the meaning of some of those terms in regards to one's "inner content", that is, one's specific contextual understanding in relation to these terms such as love, peace, acceptance, self actualization, etc.

Furthermore, in regards to number four on this Maslow's list above that you have stated to be the concerns of individuals who are not organic portals, that is, esteem which is being related to recognition of strength, intelligence, prestige and status, for an STS oriented soul, these things are important and a priority due to "internal consideration". For a STO oriented soul, such things are of no concern within. Only Giving when asked is of essential importance to an STO oriented soul, and not the 'inner dog's' needs of having a prestigious self image projected to others in regards of being a intelligent, strengthful , "good", or "giving" person.

So, I think a "potentially fully souled" Being who is also a "seed" for an STO oriented soul rather then a STS oriented soul, would be concerned with learning how to 'gently' 'tame' one's 'inner dog' in order reclaim 'sovereignty' of one's own 'consciousness container', or say, "machine" from the 'third man' behind the 'curtain', who is, through chemical emotional manipulations, always dancing a 'carrot' on a 'stick' for one's 'inner dog' to play with through the influences of "A influences"; hence, one needs to learn how to 'tame' the 'inner dog' through "C influences" 'aimed' at collecting further "B influences" in order to 'tune' one's 'consciousness container' to greater "receivership capability" by polarizing one's "receiver", that is, the "mind through central nervous system connection to higher levels", towards the STO Thought Center and polarity. STS oriented souls would not be concerned with collecting "B influences" and would not even be in sync with such energies, but would rather through a choice of doing "conscious evil" collect more and more "A influences" and thus strive to rise further to the top of the STS pyramidal food chain.

I just thought to share these thoughts since it appeared to me that that your reasoning was too general in regards to theses criterias and the concept of OPs, and thus faulty. So, what you think of these proposed thoughts?

Regards,



Saman

 

[ark]

Quotef from Adventures 17

Abraham Maslow became a father figure to the new "wave" of those desiring to fill the gaping hole of their reality with "peak experiences." Maslow cited psychedelic drugs as one of the means in which even ordinary people could have a little of what the Eastern Mystics worked many years to develop. Now, it could be had for a weekend seminar at Big Sur, or a study by mail course at only $29.95 per lesson! What a deal!

Peak Experiences - experience, experience, experience - became the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of the 1960's. No one needed to live in Existential Despair any longer! Everyone could become a "spiritual voyager" and achieve extended periods in realms of consciousness they had only heard about in veiled, mysterious allusions down through the ages.

Encounter groups, radical therapies, old and new combinations of theories and practice came rolling off the conveyor belt of techno-spirituality. The intangibles of spirit had been harnessed! Anyone could evoke some desirable experience by manipulating awareness at the basic physical and psychological levels. Never mind that all of this bypassed the vital processes of reason and conscious decision making. By its very nature, the whole techno-spiritual machine operated completely without critical thinking; it tapped the bottomless pit of feeling - emotion - primal being. Never mind that much of this emotion was negative, confusing, anxious and fearful! Let's just get it ALL out here in the open and have a party with it!

Each of the many techniques developed during this time was fully capable of producing an emotional high of one sort or another. There were endless "peak experiences," and dramatic "personal breakthroughs." The mixtures of Zen, yoga, meditation, drugs along with strict mechanical technology was a veritable adventure in awareness!

The only problem was: in the midst of all this peaking, mind-blowing, turning on and tuning in, ecstasy and encountering, many people encountered things that, perhaps, ought not have been awakened. Boundaries were breached into unseeable and terrifying realms of consciousness.

So preserve yourselves, my brothers, from the calamities of this place, for distinguishing it is extremely difficult! Souls find it sweet, and then within it they are duped, since they become completely enamored of it. [Al-'Arabi, Futuhat, III 38.23, translated by William Chittick]

Nowadays most people interested in the spirituality of the East desire the "experience," though they may call what they are after intimate communion with God. Those familiar with the standards and norms of spiritual experience set down by disciplined paths like Sufism are usually appalled at the way Westerners seize upon any apparition from the domain outside of normal consciousness as a manifestation of the "spiritual." In fact, there are innumerable realms in the unseen world, some of them far more dangerous than the worst jungles of the visible world. [Chittick, 1989]

Thus, by the end of the decade of the 60's, the "human potential" movement had become a veritable potpourri of religion, science, mysticism, magick and "the occult." The drug use got out of hand, the "techniques" began to show serious flaws in the many tragedies that occurred in any given practice, and the whole idea of human beings becoming "psychic supermen" hit the skids. The promise of the 60's decayed into an aimless lethargy - old hippies living in communes, braiding their gray locks and lusting after the sweet young teeny boppers while they fired up another bong and reminisced about the "good old days" at Esalen.

I think all points of Maslows hierarchy can as well apply to OPs. The point is that in all of Maslows teaching there is nothing that goes beyond that level.

 

[Laura]

I think all points of Maslows hierarchy can as well apply to OPs. The point is that in all of Maslows teaching there is nothing that goes beyond that level.

Yes, it seems so. I remember studying Maslow's ideas in a couple of psychology courses I took in the early days of my college career. Even then, over 30 years ago when I was pretty ignorant, I didn't see them as all that profound or anything other than simply common sense about ordinary people. They didn't speak to anything "higher" at all.

For some additional insight, I've posted some material in the Colin Wilson thread here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1387.msg7483#msg7483