Organic Portals: Human variation

Hi wanderer33,

My understanding is that the sexual center is a higher center and I doubt it has anything to do with sexual function or dysfunction, although I could be wrong. :)

As for erections, it is the result of a complex interaction of psychological and physiological reasons. Penile erection can also occur due to a full urinary bladder for example.
 
I read recently while researching this topic that the fact that males have an erection after sleep is not related to the full bladder, but concurrent with it by natural coincidence. But you may be correct and the source was wrong.
 
Hi Wanderer, you might be taking the term 'sexual center' too literally; sexual energy isn't necessarily indicative of a sexual center. All people, souled or not have the ability to reproduce as do animal and plants. But it seems it is only the soul that has the capacity to consciously create and Do, and that's where the sexual center is probably designed to function.
 
Understand that LOS. I was just thinking that this was more of a side-effect of the sexual centre rather than being directly tied to it. Like when we protectively blink in response to something coming close to our eyes, a side-effect is a cleaning of the surface of the eyeball.
 
wanderer33 said:
Understand that LOS. I was just thinking that this was more of a side-effect of the sexual centre rather than being directly tied to it. Like when we protectively blink in response to something coming close to our eyes, a side-effect is a cleaning of the surface of the eyeball.

It's an interesting observation/thought, anyway, IMO. Maybe it is true that guys who wake up with an erection are souled beings who have been "recharged" and this is just a physical manifestation of it? But I don't think it can be taken as the sine qua non... there could be reasons why souled guys who DO get re-charged during sleep do not get erections.

The subject is just so darn complex. I like what Pierre was saying about the "sameness" and the "taste" of some individuals. It reminds me of something Cleckley wrote about psychopaths:

It is nevertheless true that the psychopath engages in behavior so unlike that of others and so typical of his disorder that no act can be reported of a patient from Oregon seen ten years ago without strongly suggesting similar acts by hundreds of psychopaths carried out in dozens of communities last Saturday night. ... This disorder is so common that no one need feel that any specific act of a psychopath is likely to be distinguishable from acts carried out by hundreds of others.
 
If OP's are a bridge between 2D and 3 D .... it follows that souled beings are the bridge to 4D. It would be in the interest of 4D STS to get recruits from 3D Souled beings. Thus heavy programming for all souled beings is a must, to continue STS activity when the graduation takes place. I am just reading this now and have quite a few pages to go ....

We are STS now, so it is understandable that this world is made of souled beings, in an STS programmed nature, that exhibit STS tendencies the most passionately. This would be like a nuclear power plant's ability to produce energy vs a donkey harnessed to a wheel.
 
I agree with that.

So are you gonna roll over and play dead? :D

A friend gave me a little statue of Krsna/Shiva as a crawling baby holding up a ball/world, as in offering.
The statue came with the thought....baby steps. I think about that a lot.

1. Knowledge will help you see what is wrong and what is right.

2. With that knowledge you can protect yourself.

3. Then you can work to strengthen yourself.

4. Then you can break free.
 
If I was going to roll over and play dead, we wouldn't be in this discussion. I am not even sure of what happened in 2005, but I walked out, or was in the process of doing that, had some kind of spirit walk and decided to come back. The return was also my choice.

I see where that type of experience has a much deeper meaning. My work was not finished, so I came back. Now I am trying to work through what all that means and how I can be of service in a positive way.
 
Well, made it to page 8 so far.

I have had to stop reading some posts. I thought this might be counter productive to my learning. Now I just think there is more desire to just resolve the issue in my head. I will keep reading and I do go back sometimes for clarification.

I am thinking that it may not be necessary to define OP's so thoroughly. It may be more productive to be able to interact with all humans equally rather than trying to label people. Certainly understanding the concept is always good, but developing intuitive skills might make the necessity of recognising OP's a moot point. To an OP it wouldn't matter. I think there is some schooling that we can't get here, which would help people develop these skills and others. For now and in order to learn, we must define the classification criteria, I agree. But I also, in some way, think this might set us up for something else that learning those skills would be needed for also. By having these skills it would be a simple matter to see the soul of another being so you would know who you are dealing with. With that knowing of OP vs soul, a souled being might encounter something more difficult. I have also had many interactions with OP - STS and can seemingly spot them, but I did miss about 20%. Now, I am polite and just move on when I recognise the direction the interaction is going. I will re read this a few times, after reflecting more on the issue.

The biblical reference to the sword of division Jesus brought, is pretty clear that there would be termoil between OP's and Souled beings. This seems to be unavoidable. Still an OP does have a place in this creation so to me, it would be in my best interest to know, without question. How do I do that? My thinking is that I do that now, but I don't know what I am doing so it would be better for my position if I understood just what I was using to detect/cause these intuitions. I will continue reading!
 
WIN 52 said:
I am thinking that it may not be necessary to define OP's so thoroughly. It may be more productive to be able to interact with all humans equally rather than trying to label people. Certainly understanding the concept is always good, but developing intuitive skills might make the necessity of recognizing OP's a moot point. To an OP it wouldn't matter.

I think this is largely on-track -- the study of OPs itself is important, because it helps us understand the dynamics of our environment: how the social order is set up, why things happen for the reasons they do, and so on. But it is also not crucial to your personal development to try to figure out who is an OP and who is not (we refer to this as "spot the OP"). The C's have indicated that it would be extremely difficult for any of us say who is an OP and who isn't (including ourselves -- I could be an OP for all I, or you, know, and so could you). So I think you are correct when you choose to forego trying to label the people around you as OPs or not. What is important to you is whether your interactions with another person are beneficial or harmful -- whether they accelerate or retard your growth -- and then act according to those criteria. You don't need to know if someone is an OP in order to establish that.

WIN 52 said:
I have also had many interactions with OP - STS and can seemingly spot them, but I did miss about 20%. Now, I am polite and just move on when I recognise the direction the interaction is going. I will re read this a few times, after reflecting more on the issue.

How do you know that you can recognize any OPs at all? Also, in the realm we currently find ourselves, all OPs are technically STS, as are all souled beings (ourselves included). The latter are differentiated by the potential to become an STO candidate, but at this point everyone is STS or they wouldn't be here.

WIN 52 said:
The biblical reference to the sword of division Jesus brought, is pretty clear that there would be termoil between OP's and Souled beings. This seems to be unavoidable. Still an OP does have a place in this creation so to me, it would be in my best interest to know, without question. How do I do that? My thinking is that I do that now, but I don't know what I am doing so it would be better for my position if I understood just what I was using to detect/cause these intuitions. I will continue reading!

I am not quite sure I understand what you are asking in the question I bolded above -- can you elaborate?
 
[glow=red,2,300]
Q: (A) How do I know if I have a soul?
A: Do you sometimes suffer for others?
Q: (V) I think they're talking about empathy.
These soulless humans simply do not care what happens to someone else. If another person is experiencing pain or misery, do not know how to worry.
A: The only pain experienced is the "withdrawal" from "food" or comfort, or what they want. They are also masters of twisting the perception of others to appear empathetic. But in general, such actions are simply to retain control.

The OP´s are people without the ability to put yourself in the other, although they try to make it appear that they do. Personally, I think that is detectable when a person knows enough, especially knowing how and why it works.

[glow=red,2,300]
The agents did not perceive the world as if they were impersonal and objective observers, seeking to internally represent the world as it is independent of themselves. For an agent a sensation is significant only insofar as it relates to the goals of the agent, which in practice means that is relevant to individual survival of the agent. [Heylighen]


The QFS say:
[glow=red,2,300]
[...] The first indication of an Organic Portal is the lack of "internal conflict and the resulting questions. These are people who never doubt their thoughts or what they're told or what they have chosen to believe. Regardless of the circumstances, than failures, setbacks, these people are not attacked by the self interrogation or questioning of the system.
A OP has no internal conflict, do not react to evidence of "something more in life than material existence. But even if the OP is not plagued by such doubts, it can and has a form of "internal conflict" based on the Personality.


Clearly, OP defend with all sorts of arguments the world we live, and I mean not only his external world, if not the procedure. For example, a person who has a passion for cars and was talking about more transcendent issues and avoid talking about them, shows that is rooted in the material. Therefore, a person rooted in the material only, which means what it says on TV and no more, is an OP. Defend the world that have been proposed and are not raised anything that is beyond what he "sees".

But as in his day, Laura and some shamans (though in different words):

[glow=red,2,300]
Instead of labeling definitely the most subtle of OPs [or energy vampires], it might be better to focus on within ourselves to identify how much energy is being used in any interaction.

It is vital to be flawless, ie, must learn not to lose energy.



PS: I wrote this post in Spanish and then I used a translator, so there may be something that does not mean exactly what he meant. Thanks and apologies for the inconvenience.
 
Eongar said:
The OP´s are people without the ability to put yourself in the other, although they try to make it appear that they do. Personally, I think that is detectable when a person knows enough, especially knowing how and why it works.

I don't think it is that simple, Eongar. For example, have you ever thought you were doing something for altruistic and noble reasons, but in fact you were lying to yourself about it and you were doing it for purely out of selfishness? Well, if it is so easy to fool ourselves, imagine how hard it will be to determine if others are sincere.

The agents did not perceive the world as if they were impersonal and objective observers, seeking to internally represent the world as it is independent of themselves. For an agent a sensation is significant only insofar as it relates to the goals of the agent, which in practice means that is relevant to individual survival of the agent. [Heylighen]

Interesting. But I am not familiar with this quote. Where did you take it from, please?

The QFS say:
[...] The first indication of an Organic Portal is the lack of "internal conflict and the resulting questions. These are people who never doubt their thoughts or what they're told or what they have chosen to believe. Regardless of the circumstances, than failures, setbacks, these people are not attacked by the self interrogation or questioning of the system.
A OP has no internal conflict, do not react to evidence of "something more in life than material existence. But even if the OP is not plagued by such doubts, it can and has a form of "internal conflict" based on the Personality.

Could you please provide a link to this quote? I would like to read it in context, thanks.

Clearly, OP defend with all sorts of arguments the world we live, and I mean not only his external world, if not the procedure. For example, a person who has a passion for cars and was talking about more transcendent issues and avoid talking about them, shows that is rooted in the material. Therefore, a person rooted in the material only, which means what it says on TV and no more, is an OP. Defend the world that have been proposed and are not raised anything that is beyond what he "sees".

So how do you know if a person with passion for cars is only rooted in the material? Even if such person didn't give any other signs of spirituality, the potential for contact with their soul may still be there. Souled beings also have interest in the material - that's why they are here. On the other hand, people who appear to be very spiritual may just be doing so because it is their preferred 'personality', it makes them popular and admired, or they get any number of benefits out of it. Even psychopaths have been regarded as gurus.

The point is, I don't think it is that simple.
 
Windmill knight said:
So how do you know if a person with passion for cars is only rooted in the material? Even if such person didn't give any other signs of spirituality, the potential for contact with their soul may still be there. Souled beings also have interest in the material - that's why they are here. On the other hand, people who appear to be very spiritual may just be doing so because it is their preferred 'personality', it makes them popular and admired, or they get any number of benefits out of it. Even psychopaths have been regarded as gurus.

The point is, I don't think it is that simple.

Indeed. This reminds me of this passage from In Search of the Miraculous, regarding personality VS essence:

Conversations in groups continued as usual. Once Gurdjieff said that he wanted to
carry out an experiment on the separation of personality from essence. We
were all very interested because he had promised "experiments" for a long
time but till then we had seen nothing. I will not describe his methods, I
will merely describe the people whom he chose that first evening for the
experiment.

One was no longer young and was a man who occupied a fairly prominent
position in society. At our meetings he spoke much and often about himself,
his family, about Christianity, and about the events of the moment connected
with the war and with all possible kinds of "scandal" that had very much
disgusted him.

The other was younger. Many of us did not consider him to be a serious
person. Very often he played what is called the fool; or, on the other hand,
entered into endless formal arguments about some or other details of the
system without any relation whatever to the whole. It was very difficult to
understand him. He spoke in a confused and intricate manner even of the most
simple things, mixing up in a most impossible way different points of view
and words belonging to different categories and levels.

I pass over the beginning of the experiment.

We were sitting in the big drawing room.

The conversation went on as usual.

"Now observe," G. whispered to us.

The older of the two who was speaking heatedly about something suddenly
became silent in the middle of a sentence and seemed to sink into his chair
looking straight in front of him. At a sign from G. we continued to talk
without looking at him. The younger one began to listen to the talk and then
spoke himself. All of us looked at one another. His voice had become
different. He told us some observations about himself in a clear, simple,
and intelligible manner without superfluous words, without extravagances,
and without buffoonery. Then he became silent; he smoked a cigarette and was
obviously thinking of something. The first one sat still without moving, as
though shrunken into a ball.

"Ask him what he is thinking about," said G. quietly.

"I?" He lifted his head as though waking up when he was questioned. "About
nothing." He smiled weakly as though apologizing or as though he were
surprised at anyone asking him what he was thinking about.

"Well, you were talking about the war just now," said one of us, "about what
would happen if we made peace with the Germans; do you still think as you
did then?"

"I don't know really," he said in an uncertain voice. "Did I say that?"

"Yes, certainly, you just said that everyone was obliged to think about it,
that no one had the right not to think about it, and that no one had the
right to forget the war; everyone ought to have a definite opinion; yes or
no-for or against the war."

He listened as though he did not grasp what the questioner was saying.
"Yes?" he said. "How odd. I do not remember anything about it."

"But aren't you interested in it?"

"No, it does not interest me at all."

"Are you not thinking of the consequences of all that is now taking place,
of the results for Russia, for the whole of civilization?"

He shook his head as though with regret.

"I do not understand what you are talking about," he said, "it does not
interest me at all and I know nothing about it."

"Well then, you spoke before of your family. Would it not be very much
easier for you if they became interested in our ideas and joined the work?"

"Yes, perhaps," again in an uncertain voice. "But why should I think about
it?"

"Well, you said you were afraid of the gulf, as you expressed it, which was
growing between you and them."

No reply.

"But what do you think about it now?"

"I am not thinking about it at all."

"If you were asked what you would like, what would you say?"

Again a wondering glance-"I do not want anything."

"But think, what would you like?"

On the small table beside him there stood an unfinished glass of tea. He
gazed at it for a long time as though considering something. He glanced
around him twice, then again looked at the glass, and said in such a serious
voice and with such serious intonations that we all looked at one another:
"I think I should like some raspberry jam."

"Why are you questioning him?" said a voice from the corner which we hardly
recognized.

This was the second "experiment."

"Can you not see that he is asleep?"

"And you yourself?" asked one of us.

"I, on the contrary, have woken up."

"Why has he gone to sleep while you have woken up?"

"I do not know."

With this the experiment ended.

Neither of them remembered anything the next day. G. explained to us that
with the first man everything that constituted the subject of his ordinary
conversation, of his alarms and agitation, was in personality. And when his
personality was asleep practically nothing remained. In the personality of
the other there was also a great deal of undue talkativeness but behind the
personality there was an essence which knew as much as the personality and
knew it better, and when personality went to sleep essence took its place to
which it had a much greater right.


"Note that contrary to his custom he spoke very little," said G. "But he was
observing all of you and everything that was taking place, and nothing
escaped him."

"But of what use is it to him if he also does not remember?" said one of us.
"Essence remembers," said G., "personality has forgotten. And this was
necessary because otherwise personality would have perverted everything and
would have ascribed all this to itself."
 
I agree with others here that it is NOT an easy thing to spot an OP. And in trying to do this we are just creating a distraction from doing what is really important for all of us and that is to do the Work on ourselves. You would be amazed at what you can learn about others by learning about yourself first.

I have posted this little part of the session numerous times for people and I am hoping that it helps some to see that it really is not as easy as we thing to spot an OP according to the Cs.

020713 said:
Q: Mouravieff says that there are two kinds of humans
- he calls the "pre-Adamic" and "Adamic," [discussed in
book III]. The idea is that pre-Adamic human types
basically have no "soul" nor any possibility of growing
one. This is a pretty shocking idea, but there have
been recent scholarly discussions of this matter based
on what seems to be clinical evidence that, indeed,
there are human beings who are just "mechanical" and
have no "inner" or "higher self" at all. [See: "Division of
Consciousness"] Gurdjieff talked about this and so did
Castaneda. Are these ideas Mouravieff presents about
the two basic TYPES of humans, as far as they go,
accurate?
A: Indeed, though again, there is a "Biblical Gloss."
Q: Mouravieff says that the "pre-Adamic" humans do
not have the higher centers, nor the possibility of
developing them in this cycle - which we assume to be
the Grand Cycle you have previously described, the
length of which is around 300,000 years. Is this an
accurate representation of "pre-Adamic" beings?
A: Yes, they are "organic" portals between levels of
density.
Q: Based on what Mouravieff has said, it seems to be
so that any efforts to try to raise the consciousness of
such individuals is doomed to fail.
A: Pretty much. Most of them are very efficient
machines. The ones that you have identified as
psychopaths are "failures." The best ones cannot be
discerned except by long and careful observation.
Q: (V) Have I, or anyone in this room, ever
encountered any, and if so, can you give us an
example for reference?
A: If you consider that the population is equally
distributed, then you will understand that in an ordinary
"souled" person's life, that person will encounter half as
many organic portals as souled individuals. BUT, when
someone is in the process of "growing" and
strengthening the soul, the Control System will seek to
insert even more "units" into that person's life. Now,
think of all the people you have ever met and
particularly those with whom you have been, or are,
intimate. Which half of this number would YOU
designate as being organic portals? Hard to tell, eh?
Q: (BT) Is this the original meaning of the "pollution of
the bloodline" that the Bible talks about?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) This certainly gives a whole new meaning to all
the experiences we have had with people like "Frank"
and Vincent Bridges and Terri Burns, Olga and the rest
of the gang! What this means is that the work of
discerning these organic portals from souled human
beings is CRUCIAL to the so-called ascension process.
Without the basic understanding of transformation of,
and conservation of energies, there is no possibility of
fusing a magnetic center. No wonder the Bridges gang
and the COINTELPRO types went bananas while I was
publishing the Adventures Series! And sheesh! They
will go bonkers with this organic portal stuff! (V) In
thinking back over my life, it seems to me that my
father is certainly one of these organic portals.
A: Now, do not start labeling without due
consideration. Remember that very often the individual
who displays contradictory behavior may be a souled
being in struggle
.

The next portion of this is what was quoted by Eongar. Did you see this above portion, Eongar? The only reason I ask, is it says right there that it is very often the case that the individual who displays contradictory behavior may be a "souled" being in struggle.

Just because they don't "act" like they have empathy for others does not mean that they are an OP. Also, I have LOADS of what I think of as empathy for others, but am I just fooling myself? It is a possibility. But I am not going to worry about this or if my next-door neighbor could be an OP. I am interested in working on myself to the best of my ability whether I have a potential for a soul, or not. Worrying about who is an Op and who is not is, as I said, merely a distraction to doing what needs to be done, or so I think.
 
Try to go in order. Windmill knight, the above quotes are quantumfuture.net items in Spanish relating to OP's.

As for everything else that have posted, I will be brief. Already the human mind tends to label, and knowing that there are PO, because then maybe some people labeled as the attitude of one or the other if a OP or not. So just because labeling is subjective in itself and labels to a PO in our perception we have about the "suspect". I've commented before that is more valuable look at oneself and the need to learn not to lose energy to anything or anyone.
Furthermore, after thinking about this, understand something: that what we see and live, that is, when we see the behavior of people and of ourselves, this is Personality, speaking in terms of Mouravieff. So it is very difficult to identify a OP, because what we see of that person is the Personality and not its real essence, and if we could "see" -when we were clean-Personality, of course-then perhaps only perhaps we know.

It is true that what matters is the Work, but it is worth knowing if only a little of that. The trouble is that, that information may be misinterpreted.
 
Back
Top Bottom