Organic Portals: Human variation

[Saman]

[...]
So when we are asked for assistence, provide it and observe benefits in others, there is an STS part of us that feels good. Fine. I say let it feel what it wants, and put it in the perspective of a conditioned reflex, because objectively it has no basis. On the other hand, when our assistence results in benefits in others we feel something else that can be confused with feeling good, but is much different.

I think it does not essentially matter if we are feeling good or not if we are Giving when Asked since then we are not possessively after this chemical feeling due to it not being motivating choice to Give. Therefore, sometimes depending on the situation, it may not feel good to the 'inner dog' to Give;hence, it is the 'inner dog' that wishes to possess this so called good feeling through superficial "Giving", and the it's the STO part of the Self, the REAL I, that is not concerned with possessing this chemcial feeling in the dynamics of interpersonal relationships, since honoring Free Will by Giving when Asked, depending on the sitaution, is what is of essential importance in terms of sustaining and amplifiying and polarizing the Being's FRV towards STO Polarity. Hence, in regards to the 'inner dog's' possesive need for feel-good chemical emotions, I think the consideration of the following excerpts is essential in formulating a strategy to 'gently' train the 'inner dog' into obedience, and I think this is a gradual process, just like it is a gradual process for the owner of an actual dog to teach his pet new tricks; hence, think of the 'inner dog', the "Predator Mind", as like a disobedient pet, and threat 'gently' but 'firmly' as you would in case of an actual 2D pet so that it does not control your Being's inner state into alignment with the STS choices of having a payoff motive to simply possess this feel-good chemical emotion when striving to Give to another without anticipation.

October 7, 1997
[...]
Q: Well, I have observed that whatever we resist seems to cause us to suffer.
A: This is true, but suffering comes in differing degrees.
Q: And, it all seems to relate to our resistance to who and what we REALLY are and to
doing things from a higher level of direction rather than the emotional programming.
A: That is true. All is lesson, and each lesson is one more step on the road to union with
the One.
Q: I feel that my learning is at a standstill.
A: Standstills are not really of great concern as long as they are merely rest stops on the
pathway to greater knowledge or growth. We have told you before, and others, to watch the
signposts along the way, to read the signs and understand their meanings. If you do that, you
will be far ahead of the battle. And, "battle" is the appropriate term, because battle is what
results from attack, attack that is resisted in a progressive and positive manner. Therefore,
one wants to be ahead of the battle if at all possible, and the tools for that are the signposts,
and the signposts are EVERYWHERE! Intuition is one, synchronicity is another. You have
enough power, knowledge and awareness already to recognize the signposts. It is only the
emotions that can cause them to be clouded over. And this is only if the emotions which are
a natural state of being for 3rd density existence, serve as a hindrance instead of an
assistant. And that is the primary lesson for now: to take those emotions, which are
perfectly natural, and employ them as assistance. Once emotions have been used positively,
progress to 4th density STO is possible. The existence of emotions will moderate as
progression through 4th density STO occurs. While that may not seem possible to you, or
something that you can grasp at this time, you will understand it eventually.
[...]

So if one is allowing the 'inner dog' to "run the show" within, then I think "emotions which are
a natural state of being for 3rd density existence, serve as a hindrance instead of an assistant."

This is feeling right, which is nothing but a sense of positive confirmation that the assistence we provided has contributed to a raising of awareness, a dissolution of confusion, an enhancement of opportunity in general. Because of our actions the world has become a tad bit more right and we naturally sense this, and feel that something positive has occured.

The difference between one and the other "feeling" is that in the STS mode we seek to capitalize on our assistence to enhance our self-image, while in the STO-potential mode we are sensing a change in the world and in ourselves, an increase in organization and decrease in chaos, if you will.

Or in otherwords, in the STS mode of "Giving", the root motive is selfishly seeking the means to produce this chemical feeling for the self gratification of the 'inner dog's' need for this feel-good chemical emotion: i.e. to chemically desire to feel good about being One with All at this level without due external consideration and honoring of Free Will of whether or not the All wishes to be One with one's chemical feelings at this level.

If we consider this wrong, than we have to conclude that we shouldn't feel anything, and simply be robots in our assistence. Yet empathy entails both feeling suffering in others and feeling joy and accomplishment in others. Without this feeling, we would be devoid of the feedback that plays an irreplaceable role in the learning process.

So, I think it is not wrong to feel good but I think it is 'wrong' in regards to one's 'aim' for the initiatory motive in any interpersonal dynamic to be a desire for this feel-good chemical emotion; therefore, in the aftermath of Giving when Asked, [IF] one's Being evokes this good-feeling chemical emotion that is mixed with something 'higher', then it is in accord to one's 'aim' since the initial motive was not the payoff desire for this feeling.

So if what I said regarding being "part" STO (which was encouraged by what others, including the Ra material have said), can be taken in the wrong way, I hope I have clarified the situation. As such, thank's for pointing it out.

In regards to this "part" of the self that is STO, I think that If one's machine is currently in tune to a kind of "knightly" archetypical disposition, then perhaps making an oath in regards to certain strategical consequences for the 'inner dog', that is, if it acts not in accord to one's inner and outer 'aim', is quite helpful. This is what I have done in regards to the 'inner dog's' need for possession in interpersonal relationships, and so far, it is working for my specific Being since I am inherently willfull in following through a principle that I have made an oath to, and so, I will do it no matter what. The key is to just make sure that the consequences for the 'inner dog' are not too harsh but 'gentle' and yet 'firm', in order for the strategical oath to be effective in 'taming' the 'inner dog', and so, allow the REAL I to consistently uphold the essential Will of the STO "part" within.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Greetings,

I just finished reading this thread. Phew! *wipes sweat off of brow* Good stuff! I just could not swallow the idea of OP's at all for quite some time. The last year or so it has been more digestible, and this thread has helped gel our current speculations (I call them this because it is not quite clear to me we have reached the concensus we would want to test) in my own mind. I will throw some of my own speculations into the pot and hope I will not make us one too many cooks.

I thought for a bit of what an OP's function might be not considering the orientation (STS or STO) of the OP's current environment. Since it appears the C's coined the term "organic portal" and are known for hints being hidden in their choice of words, I decided to ponder this term. I think the most comprehensible description of an OP for me personally is to say that perhaps they do not have the choice to seek STS or STO, that they may not even sense the potential for such a choice. And yet... The C's did not call them the "decisionless" or something like this. Apparently, this portalhood could be quite central to what they are. So... I am going to bring in another speculative entity due to the C's (I think): the cryptogeographic being (CB). This is loosely defined as an entity that is a part of the 4th density STS hierarchy. The implication in the transcripts and Laura's material (e.g., in the last few paragraphs of the Schwaller De Lubicz article) frames these beings as part of the MCS and part of the reason we describe our current earthly environment as STS.

I would like to mention the possibility that the soul pools (or some of them) are CB's. I think that this is an implication of the whole discussion anyway, but I think such an explanation would explain why OP's appear to have higher emotional functions at times. Of course, we have discussed already the appearance of "higher" functioning due to an OP's reflection of the higher functions of another and the current tendency for folks with these higher functions to project them onto OP's. But... We have also seen throughout this discussion that the issue is more complex. We do not have the "OP checklist" and may not be able to make one. It seems that listing behaviors and traits that distinguish OP's from non-OP's usually ends up with being able to find exceptions to each. OP's are not so simple that the checklist is easily accessible, and yet a few of us taste a certain truth in the idea that some folks do not "get it" and will not.

I think that some of the higher emotions that complexify the OP are not just from reflection and projection but also may be residual traces picked up from the cryptogeographic being that is "looking" through the OP. Just as I can be more focused on looking rather than smelling or feeling rather than hearing, perhaps the cryptogeographic being can have a different amount of focus placed on an OP at different times. At such a time, the higher functions of the CB would be partially present in the OP masking the "lack" or "deficiency" a non-OP might normally sense in such a person. This would also explain the diversity seen in OP's. There might be different CB's or, if the OP can be viewed as part of the "body" of the CB, then there may be many functions of OP's just as I have cells of many functions in my body. In this vein, OP's might be the interface between the 4D CB and the rest of 3D, 2D, and 1D beings on the planet. Such a role would make their portal-ness (I love inventing new words ;) ) rather central to their existence.

I am not sure this is such a helpful idea though because I do not see how it would help us identify those on the path to individuation. I think it makes the idea of an STO organic portal possible because then the OP would a part of the CB rather than a being having it's free will violated. Maybe not so much on our planet, but in general?

Has anybody ever had a CB speak to you through someone you know? I can think of one anecdote in particular where that may be the case. It is pretty creepy. I do not offer such stories as proof though.

I also have some brief thoughts on those who choose the STS path consciously, but I will put those in another post. Thanks all...

 

[knowledge_of_self]

So when we are asked for assistence, provide it and observe benefits in others, there is an STS part of us that feels good. Fine. I say let it feel what it wants, and put it in the perspective of a conditioned reflex, because objectively it has no basis. On the other hand, when our assistence results in benefits in others we feel something else that can be confused with feeling good, but is much different.

When reading the above I was reminded of an analogy I had read somewhere on this site, I think it was the Wave but I am not sure; I looked for it but couldn't find it. Anyway, the analogy goes something like this.

There is a fireman. He is a fireman not because he wants to save lives for the sake of saving lives, but he is a fireman because it feels good to be labeled a "hero" after he has saved a life. From my understanding this fireman comes from an STS point of view of wanting to be labeled a "hero", but the result of his STS point of view is the saving of many lives which is in turn, from my limited understanding a leaning towards STO. Does this analogy fit with the context we are speaking? I find it interesting to think about.

Nina

 

[Lucy]

Has anybody ever had a CB speak to you through someone you know? I can think of one anecdote in particular where that may be the case. It is pretty creepy. I do not offer such stories as proof though.

II also have some anecdotes where this may have been the case. And yes, it was pretty creepy, having a 'taste' all it's own that I'd never encountered before.

I also have some brief thoughts on those who choose the STS path consciously, but I will put those in another post.

This is an area I am particularly interested in and I look forward to reading your thoughts on the subject.

 

[Ruth]

First you state Maslow's Hierarchy of needs and then go on to propose that OPs are only concerned with items one to three on this list of needs, but now you're contradicting yourself by stating "that on the surface most people look the same, so of course it 'looks' like everything that applies to OPs, applies also to non-OPs. It may do, but only up to a certain point. Most writing about humans does not see a difference, and we know these differences are very hard to see anyway, so if a person is going to find them, they need to look deeper."

So if the latter is truly your 'point' of view, then why state in your original post that you think in your opinion that on the surface OPS are only concerned with items one to three on this list?

OPs are a new concept, they won't be found in literature anywere - accept maybe Mouravieff's stuff which is when they first came up - introduced by the Cs. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that we need to look at what sociologists have been saying about human beings and see how we think this new idea applies to what has been said previously. It should be an ongoing process.

Okay. Now, can you please consider clarification on how you think that the above thoughts relate to the specific question I asked you? I don't see how.

I suppose it is all about seeing, or trying to describe the unseen. You give me the impression that the answers to everything lie in what's already been written by people (in the past) and set in stone for some reason. This would assume that people in the past knew more than they did, but did they? Most knowledge is built on that which is already known. I'm only applying what I think about OPs to something that's already been said (Maslows hierachy).

Gurdjieff didn't know about OPs either. Perhaps this is where the idea that we are all OPs comes from. He thought we are all mechanical.... So, we must be OPs, right?

Have you read all of G's works in order to make such a certain statement such as "Gurdjieff didn't know about OPs either"? If not, then isn't this prejudice in regards to G's works without due investigation?

I don't have to know how to build a car or how it works to drive it. I'm sure there are enough people who have these useful skills to find out if Gurdjieff knew anything about OPs. So far, there's been nothing to indicate this was the case. Maslow didn't know about OPs, so why should Gurdjieff? What makes him so special? Why should he know something that Maslow didn't?

Okay. I am still wondering what data you are basing your opinion upon when I asked you "based on what data are you suggesting that they will ever be concerned with learning to Ask and Give rather then simply aping what contemporary man understand to be asking and giving, and thus behaving the same as the latter?" Moreover, are we looking for relative 'understanding' or REAL Understanding? Why are you now asking the following question above: "why shouldn't there be two types of 'understanding' of what Maslows hierarchy is all about?"

The data people want and expect is usually quantifiable and therefore measureable. Thus, it must be able to be 'seen'. That presents a problem when it can't be 'seen'. In order to get data (and test it), there has to be another way of observation. But, then the usual quantitative tests can not apply. A more qualitative approach is needed. What it tries to do is take an objective look at the subjective. Which is what I'm trying to do.

Anyways Ruth, now I think Esoquest has shared some very helpful data and thoughts in regards to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, don't you think? So now with these new considerations, what do you think?

There are faults with this. The so called 'data' I think you are refering to is a form of 'measurement' which is Malsows hierachy. It measures humans in some way. The problem is, the things at the top of the hierachy are subjective. How do you measure these? You can't. Therefore, I propose that for an OPs there is a different understanding of what these subjective things are all about (eg. love - I think the Cs said it manifested as 'need' amongst 2nd density canines). This maybe the limit in its expression for an OP too. This is a new concept and therefore there is nothing to compare it to.... perhaps not enough 'facts' around subjective or objective.

 

[Nathan]

Has anybody ever had a CB speak to you through someone you know? I can think of one anecdote in particular where that may be the case. It is pretty creepy. I do not offer such stories as proof though.

II also have some anecdotes where this may have been the case. And yes, it was pretty creepy, having a 'taste' all it's own that I'd never encountered before.

I am very interested in hearing more about this. And from anyone else who has anecdotes where this may have been the case. I'll get the ball rolling with an anecdote of my own:

My former stepfather, who I am no longer in contact with, once admitted during an argument, "What would you do if you had voices screaming at you inside your head?" These "voices" apparently suggested, among other things, that he harm my mother and myself, which he attempted to do on several occasions (choking us while he was supposedly sleeping and later denying any knowledge of the event). If this is in fact true, then I can only imagine to what extent these voices have influenced his behaviour. Although it is difficult to determine whether he is an OP or someone who is "asleep", or perhaps even a psychopath who is consciously lying, if these voices are in fact real, are they little I's or something else entirely? I should mention that this extreme behaviour only began to occur when my mother began considering leaving him. Presently, we have severed contact from him completely.

This is as close to the possibility of "speaking through someone" that I have encountered.

Look forward to reading other anecdotes! :)

 

[kenlee]

I don't have to know how to build a car or how it works to drive it. I'm sure there are enough people who have these useful skills to find out if Gurdjieff knew anything about OPs. So far, there's been nothing to indicate this was the case. Maslow didn't know about OPs, so why should Gurdjieff? What makes him so special? Why should he know something that Maslow didn't?

If Mouravieff knew about the Pre-Adamic race (Organic Portals) and the Adamic race (Soul potential) then I can't see how Gurdjieff (or even Ouspensky) didn't know about it. It might also be that Gurdjieff felt that it was not yet time to divulge such information to the public until the nature of good and evil was fully understood. But I dunno what he knew. What I said is speculation. Here's a excerpt from Fritz Peters book 'Boyhood with Gurdjieff' that might have indicated that Gurdjieff knew something about the Pre-Adamic and Adamic races but he may have been holding some information back.

Excerpt from 'Boyhood with Gurdjieff' by Fritz Peters:

WHEN I WENT for my lesson the following morning, Gurdjieff looked very tired. He said that he had been working very hard--most of the night--that writing was very hard work. He was still in bed, and he stayed there throughout the lesson. He began by asking me about the exercise that had been given to all of us to do, and which I referred to previously as "self-observation". He said that it was a very difficult exercise to do and that he wanted me to do it, with my entire concentration, as constantly as possible. He also said that the main difficulty with this exercise, as with most exercises that he did--or would in the future--give to me or to any of his students, was that to do them properly it was necessary not to expect results. In this specific exercise, what was important was to see oneself, to observe one's mechanical, automatic, reactionary behavior without comment, and without making any attempt to change that behavior. "If change," he said, "then will never see reality. Will only see change. When begin to know self, then change will come, or can make change if wish-- if such change desirable."

He went on to say that his work was not only very difficult, but could also be very dangerous for some people. "This work not for everyone," he said. "For example, if wish to learn to become millionaire, necessary to devote all early life to this aim and no other. If wish to become priest, philosopher, teacher, or businessman, should not come here. Here only teach possibility how become man such as not known in modern times, particularly in western world."

He then asked me to look out of the window and to tell him what I saw. I said that, from that window, all I could see was an oak tree. And what, he asked, was on the oak tree? I told him: acorns.

"How many acorns?"

When I replied, rather uncertainly, that I did not know, he said impatiently: "Not exactly, not ask that. Guess how many!"

I said that I supposed there were several thousand of them.

He agreed and then asked me how many of the acorns would become oak trees. I answered that I supposed only five or six of them would actually develop into trees, if that many.

He nodded. "Perhaps only one, perhaps not even one. Must learn from Nature. Man is also organism. Nature make many acorns, but possibility to become tree exist for only few acorns. Same with man--many men born, but only few grow. People think this waste, think nature waste. Not so. Rest become fertilizer, go back into earth and create possibility for more acorns, more men, once in while more tree--more real man. Nature always give--but only give possibility. To become real oak, or real man, must make effort. You understand this, my work, this Institute, not for fertilizer. For real man, only. But must also understand fertilizer necessary to Nature. Possibility for real tree, real man also depend just this fertilizer."

After a rather long silence, he continued: "In west--your world--is belief that man have soul, given by God. Not so. Nothing given by God, only Nature give. And nature only give possibility for soul, not give soul. Must acquire soul through work. But, unlike tree, man have many possibilities. As man now exist he have also possibility grow by accident--grow wrong way. Man can become many things, not just fertilizer, not just real man: can become what you call 'good' or 'evil', not proper things for man. Real man not good or evil--real man only conscious, only wish acquire soul for proper development."

I had listened to him, concentrated and straining, and my only feeling--I was twelve then--was one of confusion, incomprehension. I sensed and felt the importance of what he was saying, but I did not understand it. As if aware of this (as he surely was), he said: "Think of good and evil like right hand and left hand. Man always have two hands--two sides of self--good and evil. One can destroy other. Must have aim to make both hands work together, must acquire third thing: thing that make peace between two hands, between impulse for good and impulse for evil. Man who all 'good' or man who all 'bad' is not whole man, is one-sided. Third thing is conscience; possibility to acquire conscience is already in man when born; this possibility given--free--by nature. But is only possibility. Real conscience can only be acquired by work, by learning to understand self first. Even your religion--western religion--have this phrase 'Know' thyself'. This phrase most important in all religions. When begin know self already begin have possibility become genuine man. So first thing must learn is know self by this exercise, self-observation. If not do this, then will be like acorn that not become tree--fertilizer. Fertilizer which go back in ground and become possibility for future man."

 

[StrangeCaptain]

I do not mean to sound like an old humbug, but I think this thread is too important to risk it being hijacked by tales of high strangeness. They are so alluring and unreliable. I think they can point out our lack of knowledge in certain areas but lend themselves easily to being obsessed upon or to being the vehicle of disinformation. Maybe there should be a high strangeness thread in the sandbox forum or something. I had really just meant to bring up in everyone's minds their own run-ins with the whole possession thing because likely many of us had those hair-on-the-back-of-the-neck-standing-up type of events.

 

[Saman]

Ruth, as usual, you are emotionally in a debate mode rather then a discussion mode, and in this instance, it is due to your machine's activation of a deflective program invoked by the word "faulty" and how the latter is related to your point of view, and thus, instead of providing data on why you think your point of view is not faulty, you rather allow the machine's "self importance", that is, the 'inner dog' who wants to possess the feeling of being right, to run the show within. Hence, it seems I am speaking to a stone wall that only mirrors some of what I have stated back to me but with a clever twist, that is, a twist that is even a contradiction to what was stated previously by "yourself" behind this wall that wishes to not sincerely answer any questions but to go on and on with deflective rhetoric.

 

[Guest]

Skycaptain, this issue of CB's seems interesting and worthy of some discussion. It seems the thread here has split in two. Maybe you can consider starting a new thread regarding this offshoot issue, because I for one am beginning to get confused with the divergence of topics here. I think there is a bit to develop here if you do.

Maybe you could post your original comments on the topic to start the thread off.

 

[tschai]

Pardon my ignorance-what is a CB? I know OP is organic portal-

 

[Guest]

It is something Strangecaptain mentioned in a post on page 20 on this thread, and which needs to be elaborated upon IMO.

Apparently, this portalhood could be quite central to what they are. So... I am going to bring in another speculative entity due to the C's (I think): the cryptogeographic being (CB). This is loosely defined as an entity that is a part of the 4th density STS hierarchy. The implication in the transcripts and Laura's material (e.g., in the last few paragraphs of the Schwaller De Lubicz article) frames these beings as part of the MCS and part of the reason we describe our current earthly environment as STS.

 

[Mark]

With that said, I do grok the idea that one can, to increasing degrees, become an STO candidate as we travel through this 3d life - and I also tie in empathy with that idea - I suppose on some level that I perceive an STO existence to be so utterly different from the life of consumption of others for food that we, by physical necessity, live, that I find it very hard to conceive of the fact that we are actually 'part STO' - it is something I just have a hard time accepting - but I can accept that we are becoming "part STO candidate' - if that makes any sense at all - and maybe, this is the same thing?

Here are my thoughts on this: If we're somewhere between 99% and 51% STS then the rest must be part STO (or so I think anyway), and therefore the potential to increase the 1% to 49% STO up to and beyond the 50% STO threshold can be called candidacy unless the choice is intentionally made to withdrawing that candidacy, as Hitler is said to have done (align with the forces of darkness) in his early youth. So while he did serve All of creation, possibly unknowingly, he chose to be STS and therefore wasn't a STO candidate, even though he was still part STO. In summary, it seems we can be part STO while not being a STO candidate; and that if we haven't chosen against STO then we are a candidate. I could be wrong though.

 

[tschai]

The way I understand it is like this-

We that is humans living in 3rd Density- are ALL STS by our very nature-we cannot BE anything BUT STS- while we are still in 3rd Density-however we CAN develop a DESIRE to be STO while in 3rd Density-hence become STO candidates-but this happens ONLY after we realize the DIFFERENCE between STS and STO-that there even ARE two sides of the coin so to speak.

Ordinary humans are just not aware of this- and what it means to be truly, "unconditionally", commited to anything-we just do not have the depth of understanding needed to do so.

Just simply "wanting to help others" is NOT STO-because you WANT-which is an STS trait. The individual(s) have to ASK first-and you do it because you were asked.

Nor is helping people because it "makes you feel good inside"-nope. Still an STS trait-it makes YOU feel good.

The C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period. We are not capable-but as said above-we can develop the DESIRE to do so-which is also an STS trait-but the C's said it's o.k. because we are STS anyway-so go ahead and be selfish-DESIRE to become STO!

So in that way it is a kind of paradox.

We can only become STO after moving to 4th Density-only there can we experience the totality of "being" required to realize just what it is to "BE" STO or STS-and thereby make a decision on which orientation we want to "BE"

 

[Saman]

[...]
Nor is helping people because it "makes you feel good inside"-nope. Still an STS trait-it makes YOU feel good.

The C's have explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density-period. We are not capable-but as said above-we can develop the DESIRE to do so-which is also an STS trait-but the C's said it's o.k. because we are STS anyway-so go ahead and be selfish-DESIRE to become STO!

So in that way it is a kind of paradox.

We can only become STO after moving to 4th Density-only there can we experience the totality of "being" required to realize just what it is to "BE" STO or STS-and thereby make a decision on which orientation we want to "BE"

Hi. I just posted something recently in regards to these thoughts above. Moreover, the C's have not explained we simply cannot be STO in 3rd Density period. If you recheck the sessions in regards to 3D STO, they said "discover".