Ruth
The Living Force
Passive Organic Portals? & leg/knee Shaking
I don't think mechanicalness causes manipulation, sts causes manipulation.
It more likely (imo) that people who care or emotionally react to a situation are non-OPs.nktulloch said:So are you saying we should give a hoot otherwise we may be OPs?
We're talking about souls here, not behaviour or physical characteristics. My conjecture is that ops are simpler souls in comparison to non-ops. And, that they are probably less likely to want to 'study' anything at all, let alone care about things that are non-mechanical. I suppose you might say it could be described as indifference.nktulloch said:I don't know if an OP is simple or not. Observing the behavior of other vertebrates tells me that 'simple creatures' are not simple, and so, I would not presume to think an OP would be either. What you wrote about it being more interesting to study souled people seems to contradict.
The op-like behaviour you are observing is really just another name for STS like behaviour. If a person can't tell the difference between ops and non-ops, then how can they know what op-like behaviour is? Its simple, a person can't. Its also reasonable that there needs to be other things about ops which are different from non-ops. If a person goes round simply observing STS behaviour and attributing it to ops, then they are most likely wrong about what ops are. It has to be something more than that. Maybe, if we weren't so involved with STS and making it the 'root of all evils', we would see that ops are different from non-ops in other ways.nktulloch said:What makes it completely incorrect? If OPs exist there must be OP like behavior although I can only speculate what OP like behavior may be based on what I observe within myself and the world around me and what the Cs, Mouravieff, and others have said about the types of humans.
Firstly, we are all souled. Some of us have 'souped-up' souls (50%?) and some don't. This isn't something thats a big deal, it just 'is'... And it's not even new. The problem that STS non-ops have is that they become all racist. Completely uncessessary, imo, but fits into the STS 'profile' quite nicely. So, the problem of 'seeing' an op and not, tends to come back to the STS problem of heirachy and 'wanting to be better' than others (which is where the idea of 'spot the OP' comes as well as 'all ops are bad'..etc, etc.). I'm getting a bit sick of it because it really does seem so silly.nktulloch said:How do you know a person is souled? or how do you know a person is an OP?
I'm not entirely sure I know either. I have some ideas, but they seem to be mostly ignored, while people say that I must be playing some silly game of 'spot the op'.. because I'm saying something different. The emphasis seems to be put on not 'seeing' something in favour of 'seeing' something. And all this, because of an STS heirachy which is absolutely irrelevant to 'seeing' anything at all.nktulloch said:I don't. This is what I was getting at by using the term 'spot the OP' as in it's not an easy matter to know.
I start with the assumption that we all have souls and that they tend to become more 'souped-up' or complicated (developed?) as they move towards 6th density (the opposite of entropy). Of course, this has nothing to do with STO and STS. All people on this planet have souls. Its the degree of complication that confuses people. It seems to me that if there can be physical evolution, then souls can evolve too. Perhaps it goes hand in hand?nktulloch said:How do you know you have a soul? What is a soul? These are just a few of the questions raised.
I have some ideas, but they may be wrong too. I'm not sure if this means I 'know' anything at all. It could mean nothing at all.nktulloch said:This is what it amounts to when we try to describe OPs as this or OPs as that. We don't know. At least I don't know.
Yes, that's pretty much what I think, although at the moment, I'm inclined to think that a person is either an op or not and it has nothing to do with what one is working on, or thinks one is working on. I'm less inclined to think that an op would be interested in working on anything to do with the soul. They are more mechanical and that's not a bad thing, neither is it something that should concern non-ops.nktulloch said:All I do know is that based onthe Cs and Mouravieff and Gurdjieff's description of the different types of man, what we call an OP is a person with a different level of awareness-i.e. lacking potential for higher centers. Therefore, the behaviors of such a person have certain mechanicalness relative to those who capable of higher centers AND are ACTIVELY working on getting those centers running correctly. We are not talking psychopaths here as that is another kettle of fish in my opinion.
It may actually be quite simple, only STS is trying to make it complicated. I think we need to think a little less about our higher centers and a little more about how to become STO. Anything can become mechanical, if we wish it to be. If we stay STS, then we are doomed regardless on how 'souped-up' our higher centers are, we'll just end up working for the Lizzies.nktulloch said:Precisely because it is complex,is why I think we should look at ourselves and how we relate to others more so than wonder what OPs do and don't do. Are we mechanical or are our choices conscious ones? We have to get to know ourselves more before we can presume to know others.
Sure, why not? Afterall, STS manipulates everything and everyone for their own benefit and to others detriment.nktulloch said:I don't quite understand. Are you saying that non-OPs are possibly manipulating OPs?ruth said:It would be kind of ironic if the people who think they are manipulated (us) are actually the ones manipulating OPs - or at least representative of those that do. Afterall, we are STS, so it would not surprise me at all if OPs are first and foremost manipulated by non-OPs.
I'm not sure why you think that mechanical-like behaviour automatically causes us to manipulate others, when its our orientation which does this (sts versus sto)? It takes consciousness to manipulate others, and this is because consciousness decides whether we are going to treat people in an sts manner or an sto manner. If you were to take it to the extreem, a machine is neither sts nor sto, because it doesn't have a consciousness. When was the last time your car told you what to do, or your mobile phone manipulated you? :D So, it is entirely possible that non-ops with the more 'souped-up' soul ( or developed consciousness) can manipulate ops who are much more mechanical. This would be up until any group of ops figured out they are being manipulated, then they may turn into a force to be recconned with. Unfortunately, most would not have the consciousness to see past their own mechanicalness in order to 'turn on' their (sts) manipulators.nktulloch said:I can see how this could be Maybe I used the term "OP like behavior" too loosely so you misunderstood. OP like behavior in my mind doesn't necessarily mean 'bad'. I am making an assumption, however. The assumption is that OP like behavior is any behavior that lacks a certain level of consciousness. In other words, mechanical behavior compared to one who is aware. That is what I was getting at. I think that we should see how we behave mechanically whether good or bad. Our mechanical behavior makes it easy for us to be manipulated into serving an STS agenda whether we are OPs or not. It also causes us to manipulate others, whether those others are OPs or not. So yes, us 3D earthlings are STS. Half are OPs other half are not really, although many of the non-op half may behave as if they lack a certain level of conscious awareness. In otherwords behave OP like.
Oh, goodness me, I think I just said that, but it was in response to your "It also causes us to manipulate others, whether those others are OPs or not. "nktulloch said:I would say we are all STS. So I can agree with saying we are STS until we choose not to be. This is what we are whether OPs or not because we 'fit' on an STS planet. It would include manipulation all around until we learn enough about ourselves and the world we live in to be able to choose to stop being mechanical AND stop manipulating. But mechanicalness and manipulation are separate things.
I don't think mechanicalness causes manipulation, sts causes manipulation.
Its interesting to know where the idea comes from, but I still think it is incorrect. We are all STS until we chose not to be. A person is either an op or they are not, and it looks like the only ones who can chose to change to STO are those that have the souped-up consciousness of the non-op. Ops on the other hand can chose to become individuated or more 'souped-up' souls, if they like. And, I suppose it's then that they have to confront and make choices about STS.nktulloch said:Even if not being mechanical makes it easier to stop manipulating, not being mechanical doesn't mean one WILL CHOOSE to stop manipulating. I think this is where the term "we are all OPs comes until we choose not to be" comes from.
Absolutely conscious of it. People need to start to 'see' and stop self-justifying their own blindness and 'sitting on the fence' about things (a term that has also been applied to me at one stage, too). None of this "If you don't say what we want to hear, you are manipulating/mechanical/psychopathic". If people really wanted to 'see', they wouldn't accuse me of doing or being these things, in an effort to avoid 'seeing' what I'm trying to say. How mechanical is that? How manipulated is that? All of it is done via STS btw, not ops.nktulloch said:As long as we are unconscious of our mechanical behaviors, we often manipulate and lie to ourselves and others. Those who are capable of conscious/non-mechanical action but choose to manipulate in whatever way must be consciously STS, psychopaths even. At this point the discussion becomes a different topic so I will stop here except to say that I also see a rather mechanical routine to your participation in discussions regarding OPs. This may be a conscious choice on your part or maybe not. What others may mean when they say you're doing it again begs the question of whether or not you are conscious of what you are doing when it comes to this particular topic.