Organic Portals: Human variation

[Nathan]

Hi Laura, well according to my conceptual model of an OP, this would not make him an OP! How you judge a possible OP and how I judge one seems to be quite different.

I am not in disagreement with your conceptual model of OP's. What you consider OP's IMO are OP's. I believer, however, that not ALL OP's fit your model.

This is probably because you are trying to fit what I've said into YOUR conceptual model. Square pegs in round holes or something like that. It doesn't actually work to 'best fit' most of the time and peoples responses to that can be quite dismaying.

This is beginning to go around in circles...

The point EsoQuest is making here is that she/he is "not in disagreement with your conceptual model of OP's". And by saying "not ALL OP's fit your model", EsoQuest means that not all OPs fit anyone's conceptual model.

 

[anart]

Hi Laura, well according to my conceptual model of an OP, this would not make him an OP! How you judge a possible OP and how I judge one seems to be quite different.

I am not in disagreement with your conceptual model of OP's. What you consider OP's IMO are OP's. I believer, however, that not ALL OP's fit your model.

This is probably because you are trying to fit what I've said into YOUR conceptual model. Square pegs in round holes or something like that. It doesn't actually work to 'best fit' most of the time and peoples responses to that can be quite dismaying.

This is beginning to go around in circles.

Interesting, because I don't see it going around in circles at all; I see different minds approaching one understanding - much like a spirograph pattern slowly approaches the center of its design. One signal is stronger, influening the others to move toward it. As I learned today, so often we discuss points of view with words from different perspectives, yet the main point of view we are trying to isolate and define is already understood.

 

[John Chang]

I think it's one of those things about people - when times are easy, you never really know who is the real person inside. Everyone puts up a front.

It's only during hard times that the inner nature (or lack therof) comes out. When the chips are down, the gloves and masks come off.

Maybe if your "spidey sense" is strong enough, maybe you can sense something that's missing. Maybe. My spidey sense ain't that strong. I don't have the gift that some people have.

You'll never ever hear an OP talk about that funny feeling inside telling him to get off the train. Or about how you know that something is in the mailbox, and you should go check. Or how they didn't get sick as a dog after 9/11, even though it didn't affect them directly. Or how something inside said it was a good time to go short in 8/01.

 

[Nathan]

Anart - hope I didn't sound impatient! :P I guess it is all part of the learning process.

John's mention of "spidey sense" actually reminded me of a particular ability my grandmother has. During her younger years, whenever she would experience an uneasy feeling in her stomach, she would immediately cancel her plans. However, on one occasion the plans could not be cancelled as it was a wedding and two relatives were relying on being picked up along the way. She did her best to ignore her intuition/precognition and they picked up the two relatives without incident. However, on the way to the destination, they got lost and had to pull over to the side of the road to consult a map. While doing so, another motorist appeared over the hill from the other direction, travelling at phenomenal speed, and swerved into the side of my grandparents', scraping the side from front to back. My grandfather, the driver, dived over my grandmother - sitting on the safe side of the car - to protect her, while one of the relatives, a great aunty of mine, who was sitting on the side that was struck, was severely injured and subsequently had to spend several months in hospital recovering. The motorist turned out to be a drunk driver. Since then, no one has ignored her gut feeling - even if it is a wedding.

This ability appeared to pass down to my mother, yet in a different flavour. Rather than being able to sense dangerous situations prior to occurance, she could sense dangerous people - even when everyone else was entranced by their spell. Not to say that this instinct was used to full effect. She openly admits that by ignoring this instinct, she married a psychopath for 1 year, who tried to force her to have an abortion (if he had've succeeded, then you would not be reading this right now), and then married a (possible?) OP for 22 years, who became the stepfather I was raised with. In these cases, she dismissed her intuition as "cold feet". In the psychopath's case, she originally believed she had "made him a better, caring person", but now she has realised that she had helped him emulate a "better, caring person". The second marriage, however, only ended very recently, after a long and torturous year of trying to break free (details omitted), at which point he confessed to us that he had voices inside his head yelling at him to do things (which included intent to kill us while we were sleeping). In this instance, it took my mother 20 of those 22 years to wake up to who this person really was. Although I had an existing unease with my stepfather, I was never able to put my finger on it.

Also, prior to my birth, my mother was driving behind a ute carrying sheets of glass. Out of nowhere, a voice suggests she should slow down. She slows down, deciding that maybe it is best to stay away from glass, only to watch as the entire load of glass slides off the back and shatters onto the road before her. Had she not have backed off, she would been killed. Not sure, however, if this is the same ability I mentioned above. Perhaps this was her subconsciousness warning her in some fashion? Or something else entirely?

Unfortunately, much like John, my "spidey sense" isn't that strong either. My ability is inconsistent and weak at best.

After John's comments on "spidey sense" helped me recall this strange, hereditary intuition or precognition, it made me wonder whether this was unique to potentially souled individuals. Although it would be hard to use as an identifier for OPs, since only a few potentially souled individuals possess odd senses such as these, it is nonetheless intriguing.

EDIT: Just noticed John started a post here on "spidey sense". Check it out, it's worth a look. "The Celestine Prophecy" and the writings of Castaneda certainly come to mind.

 

[Guest]

Interesting, because I don't see it going around in circles at all; I see different minds approaching one understanding - much like a spirograph pattern slowly approaches the center of its design. One signal is stronger, influening the others to move toward it. As I learned today, so often we discuss points of view with words from different perspectives, yet the main point of view we are trying to isolate and define is already understood.

I guess this is what the dialectic process is all about, and why discussion or dialogue reveals the truth by circling around it, ideally getting closer at each "pass". Socrates knew something about that, I gather...

Sometimes, however, the circle meets a snag that can to take the path farther from the center or at least keep the orbit at a static distance. Dialectic spiralling toward a kernel of truth is not always a smooth process. Such snags IMO are major learning opportunities, and when addressed can end up accelerating the dialecting flow closer to the center.

This is beginning to go around in circles...

The point EsoQuest is making here is that he is "not in disagreement with your conceptual model of OP's". and by saying "not ALL OP's fit your model", EsoQuest means that not all OPs fit anyone's conceptual model.

I believe that Nathan was observing a slight snag here. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is how it feels to me so I want to take a look at it.

Hi Laura, well according to my conceptual model of an OP, this would not make him an OP! How you judge a possible OP and how I judge one seems to be quite different.

I am not in disagreement with your conceptual model of OP's. What you consider OP's IMO are OP's. I believe, however, that not ALL OP's fit your model.

This is probably because you are trying to fit what I've said into YOUR conceptual model. Square pegs in round holes or something like that. It doesn't actually work to 'best fit' most of the time and peoples responses to that can be quite dismaying.

I used the word "conceptual model" here, Ruth, to attempt to build a communication bridge through what amounts to a fundamental and important disagreement in this discussion. My view of it is more in terms of fluid understanding. By definition a model is a simplification, and a scaling down of what it is moving to convey. It can be useful when you want to apply your knowledge, but it can also be misleading because it tends to rely on generalizations and a rounding out of what it is meant to represent. Often it becomes a caricature of what it is meant to describe.

This is interesting indeed. I suspect the reason why your judgement of an OP differs from Laura's, or anyone else's for that matter, is because you had identified traits of one soul pool, whereas with Laura's example she had identified another.

I am essentially saying the same thing with Nathan, i.e., that you are identifying a limited soul-pool spectrum with OP's, while I see a greater spectrum which includes this. Yet you don't seem to be disagreeing with the above comment.

Now, it goes without saying that I am trying to understand what you say in terms that make sense to me. If the difference is truly a matter of "square pegs in round holes" then the dialectic has halted and there is no common center in this discussion. Here is the difference in view-points that I see, and it has nothing to do with communication abilities or ability to express. You have made yourself consistently clear, IMO.

What I see is that you tend to speak of OP's in dehumanizing terms, as programmed herd-oriented automatons. The soul qualities that exist in all beings lack from your descriptions. You seem to be talking more of machines than of people. You mention OP's, regarding your personal experience, being irritating as if that was some kind of defining OP trait. Not as BAD as psychopaths, mind you, but still beneath those of a more refined Adamic constitution.

There is a tone of looking down upon OP's in your writings, at least this is how they come accross to me. It's as if you are in a rush to carve out a stamp with the word "OP" on it and start stamping foreheads. When I read your views, I keep getting images of people with armbands with the letters "OP" on them in yellow. You may not be intending to convey this, but if you take your opinions to their logical conclusion that's where you end up.

In this process of circling around the truth, of which we all have a sense, a perspective and some experience to back it up, I see you always taking the moral high ground regarding the OP phenomenon. Perhaps I did indulge in some philosphical speculation, but that was based on my understandings of the literature quoted here, my digestions of it, if you will, trying to incorporate it with things I experienced and thought about for a long time.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe OP's are "lesser beings" (which may be just a polite way of saying they're all "scum"). If that is the case, and half the people on this planet are as you say they are, I can see why Mouravieff spoke about a possible war between Adamics and non-Adamics. Only, I always figured that no ensouled individual could be causal to such a conflict. If you are a potentially individualized person then perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps Adamics can be causal to such a conflict of mutual annihilation, especially when their views place OP's and "ensouled" into irreconcilable polarized camps.

You seem to not accept that there can be OP's who have something to teach us, who are more noble than us as human beings, who are stable and balanced where we may still be in the turmoil of an inner growth that we may not understand. These higher level OP's can be a grounding anchor of healthy psychology that we may need to reference as we move through transitions so we don't stray from the very humanity we share with OP's.

I mentioned that I agreed that there are OP's who are like machines, who do follow the herd, and who seem programed by their instincts. I think, however, that if HALF of all humanity was like this, there would be no humanity at this time. From all you have said having a non-individuated soul (or soul-pool soul) means one is not really a human (humane) being, only looking like one, with the imposter-robots being 50% of the population. This doesn't seem compatible with the complex evolutionary variety I observe in humanity.

How do you measure the 'strength of soul presence' in a particular soul pool? And how do you know that there is more than one soul pool (for OPs)? Does this have anything to do (as in links) with re-incarnation. Do OPs reincarnate in order to 'grow' connections to their higher chakras. I suppose anything's possible.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think I could catagorically say what you've said unless it was an idea only, because there's certainly no proof.

I placed the word "measured" in quotes because I meant if figuratively. You cannot reference soul essence in terms of quantifiable units of measurement. You can, however, experience the "measure" of a soul qualitiatively, intuitively and through empathy. That is what empathy is, IMO: soul connection, and inter-soul understanding. Do you have empathy? Can you feel the presence of soul in another? Can you feel the degree of soul presence in another? This is obviously a controversial subject regarding psychopaths, but when the OP does not exhibit psychopathic behaviour it should be easier to do.

Just because one may have genes of individuation potential, however, does not mean empathy has yet developed or matured. When empathy is strong, on the other hand, I believe that it is the instrument of perceiving soul presence in another. And when we view an OP from an evolved or strong soul pool it can be hard to tell such a person apart from an ensouled individual. It's all in the subtle details in my view, and each case is different.

How do I know that there is more than one soul pool for OP's? Go up to the Gurdjieff quote on Obyvatels. That may help. On the other hand, if there was ONLY one soul pool for OP's it would be a sub-species pool, which would mean a very narrow and limited spectrum of OP behaviour indeed. Proof? Look at humanity. Are 50% of humans reall all at the same evolutionary expression, with only a few differences in "program"? If these 50% really belonged to the same soul pool then this thread would be a lot shorter, because I think a single soul-pool over half of humanity would be obvious.

And in this comment you revealed the real difference in opinion: that OP's are all of one soul pool in your view. So I ask you: what is YOUR proof?

Differences in soul pools like differences between OP's and ensouled can be dependent of genetic variables. That stands to reason, given all the information. Like the differences in OP/ensouled "bloodlines" these variables may not be related to racial characteristics, but may be intrinsic factors that we can perhaps associate with karma and the past-lives paradigm as a way of understanding their presence. In that sense, a soul pool is constantly incarnating through many people and evolving just as individuals do.

Mouravieff explains that OP's can at some point evolve higher centers to sustain soul individuation (although he believes that the Adamics will have been done with 3D first). I wanted to explore possible dynamics of that transition. Given the complexity of nature and reality, I do not think it farfetched that an OP soul-pool can reach a stage where it can become a source of soul individuality, while Adamics are still here.

There may be a point where a soul pool reaches a stage where it attempts incarnation into one individual, finally coming into focus after a long period of genetic adaptation, or the pool might somehow split and the former OP's can develope mutations of ensoulment to focus the energies of the evolved pools as separate souls. Genetic differences between OP's and ensouled are far less and far more subtle than differences between Cro-magnons and Neanderthals for example.

Empathy contains the potential for the experience of transpersonal soul continuity, that souls and pools are distinct but not isolated from each other. IMO living that state of realized soul continuity in the spectrum of being is Knowledge. I don't think I can give you satisfactory proof here, but it is something to consider.

 

[Laura]

The problem I have with this idea is that it assumes that there is more than one soul pool for OPs and uses behaviour as an 'idea' as to which one they belong to. I don't know if this is right or wrong, it is simply (to me) an unknown.

And then...

There are also robots, robotoid (as the Cs described VB), wanderers, 4D STO and 4D STS flying around ect. And that's only those in and/or interacting with 3D.

On the one hand, you pronounce one set of ideas as "unknown," and because they are unknown, you consider them merely assumptions. Then, in the next breath you pronounce other equally unknown ideas as though they were facts. Most confusing.

Considering this confusion factor....

I have recently been reflecting on why I tend to be more argumentative than agreeable in my interactions with people and asking myself why I tend to communicate more actively when there is disagreement than agreement. So I have been thinking about it! Not sure if it has to do with the 'Terrible Twos", though. I once had a person tell me that I'd never really made it past the bonding or infant stage (trust versus mistrust?) and I do have a lot of hostility towards authority (programed into me?) as well as what seems to be reactive emotions. There is stuff there, but I'm not sure it has something directly linked to the age of two. I must look into it though as apparently the only way I can express myself is through a 'tantrum'.

And then...

So, what you are saying is that if there is differences in opinion, conversation or any discussion should stop right there? I hope not, as this tend to be discouraging, but this has been my experience in the past and most likely colours my response as well as the response from others. Some even chose not to respond. Imo, this is because people are looking for agreement and this means a lot to them.

Allow me to quote a bit from Gurdjieff, since he said it so well, but we have certainly had enough experiences with our groups to suggest that Gurdjieff's descriptions of the broad divisions of humanity are accurate.

" 'The outer circle' is the circle of mechanical humanity to which we belong and which alone we know. The first sign of this circle is that among people who belong to it there is not and there cannot be a common understanding. Everybody understands in his own way and all differently. This circle is sometimes called the circle of the 'confusion of tongues,' that is, the circle in which each one speaks in his own particular language, where no one understands another and takes no trouble to be understood. In this circle mutual understanding between people is impossible excepting in rare exceptional moments or in matters having no great significance, and which are confined to the limits of the given being. If people belonging to this circle become conscious of this general lack of understanding and acquire a desire to understand and to be understood, then it means they have an unconscious tendency towards the inner circle because mutual understanding begins only in the exoteric circle and is possible only there. But the consciousness of the lack of understanding usually comes to people in an altogether different form.

"So that the possibility for people to understand depends on the possibility of penetrating into the exoteric circle where understanding begins.

(The next circle is the "third circle" of the INNER circle.) "The third circle is called the 'exoteric,' that is, the outer, because it is the outer circle of the inner part of humanity. The people who belong to this circle possess much of that which belongs to people of the esoteric and mesoteric circles but their cosmic knowledge is of a more philosophical character, that is to say, it is more abstract than the knowledge of the mesoteric circle. A member of the mesoteric circle calculates, a member of the exoteric circle contemplates. Their understanding may not be expressed in actions. But there cannot be differences in understanding between them. What one understands all the others understand.

"The next circle is called the 'mesoteric,' that is to say, the middle. People who belong to this circle possess all the qualities possessed by the members of the esoteric circle with the sole difference that their knowledge is of a more theoretical character.' This refers, of course, to knowledge of a cosmic character. They know and understand many things which have not yet found expression in their actions. They know more than they do. But their understanding is precisely as exact as, and therefore precisely identical with, the understanding of the people of the esoteric circle. Between them there can be, no discord, there can be no misunderstanding. One understands in the way they all understand, and all understand in the way one understands. But as was said before, this understanding compared with the understanding of the esoteric circle is somewhat more theoretical.

"The inner circle is called the 'esoteric'; this circle consists of people who have attained the highest development possible for man, each one of whom possesses individuality in the fullest degree, that is to say, an indivisible 'I,' all forms of consciousness possible for man, full control over these states of consciousness, the whole of knowledge possible for man, and a free and independent will. They cannot perform actions opposed to their understanding or have an understanding which is not expressed by actions. At the same time there can be no discords among them, no differences of understanding. Therefore their activity is entirely co-ordinated and leads to one common aim without any kind of compulsion because it is based upon a common and identical understanding.

It strikes me that seeking those who "see" the same way is the key to establishing colinearity. One has conversations with other people in order to find out if the other person is similar in some way that could be described as "wave reading." The C's refer to human beings as "wave reading consciousness units." So one might think that how one "reads" or "sees" is a key to the inner nature. The C's have said, in fact, "It doesn't matter where you are, what matters is WHO you are and WHAT you SEE."

Since you, Ruth, so often find yourself in disagreement, and you even find the idea of agreement to be somewhat repellant, perhaps you haven't found YOUR group? When you find them, I'm sure that you will find that you rapidly agree on most everything said and you won't feel tired from interacting with them, and they certainly will not be exhausted by you.

 

[Russ]

On the one hand, you pronounce one set of ideas as "unknown," and because they are unknown, you consider them merely assumptions. Then, in the next breath you pronounce other equally unknown ideas as though they were facts. Most confusing.

Laura, why are you singling Ruth out for this assessment, when it could be attributed to pretty much everyone on this forum at one time or another?

Edit: Not just the forum, but the entire world/human race. Although this forum has less of it, its still something which we are way off perfecting IMO.

 

[Joe]

On the one hand, you pronounce one set of ideas as "unknown," and because they are unknown, you consider them merely assumptions. Then, in the next breath you pronounce other equally unknown ideas as though they were facts. Most confusing.

Laura, why are you singling Ruth out for this assessment, when it could be attributed to pretty much everyone on this forum at one time or another?

Edit: Not just the forum, but the entire world/human race. Although this forum has less of it, its still something which we are way off perfecting IMO.

It seems to me that Laura is not "singling out Ruth" but rather attempting to use Ruth's comments in order to express a concept. It seems that you, Russ, might have some kind of a "button" that was pushed here.

Here's a little tale that might be relevant:

Once a traveling monk agreed to carry a woman across a rushing river despite his vows not to look at or touch women. He set her down on the far side and continued along the road with his fellow monk. After a good distance his companion could no longer contain his anger, “How could you break our vows and carry that woman?” He asked. The monk replied, “I put her down way back there, but I see that you are still carrying her.”

Joe

 

[Ryan]

Now, it goes without saying that I am trying to understand what you say in terms that make sense to me. If the difference is truly a matter of "square pegs in round holes" then the dialectic has halted and there is no common center in this discussion. Here is the difference in view-points that I see, and it has nothing to do with communication abilities or ability to express. You have made yourself consistently clear, IMO.

So, what you are saying is that if there is differences in opinion, conversation or any discussion should stop right there? I hope not, as this tend to be discouraging, but this has been my experience in the past and most likely colours my response as well as the response from others. Some even chose not to respond. Imo, this is because people are looking for agreement and this means a lot to them.

Of course people are looking for agreement! What's wrong with that? One of the main reasons I started interacting with the QFG was because I had found a group of people who agreed with many of my own perspectives on life. If I wanted disagreement, I would have joined the Jehova's Witnesses or some other fundy bible basher group. Interacting with groups of people diametrically opposed to your own point of view (with no clear aim or purpose) bespeaks of sadomasochistic tendencies more than anything else IMO.

What I see is that you tend to speak of OP's in dehumanizing terms, as programmed herd-oriented automatons.

I keep hammering away with this because repetition and exaggeration often mean that sometimes people see what I'm trying to say.

You mean you want people to agree with you?!?

You mention OP's, regarding your personal experience, being irritating as if that was some kind of defining OP trait.

This is my defining trait, as I tend to get frustrated with them. This is an assumption, I know...it assumes the people I'm frustrated with are actually OPs!

So why even make statements based on such obvious assumptions?

There is a tone of looking down upon OP's in your writings, at least this is how they come accross to me. It's as if you are in a rush to carve out a stamp with the word "OP" on it and start stamping foreheads. When I read your views, I keep getting images of people with armbands with the letters "OP" on them in yellow. You may not be intending to convey this, but if you take your opinions to their logical conclusion that's where you end up.

Well, in the past, it has been suggested that I'm YCYOR; making a list so I can 'spot' them (presumably to do what you have said above - or worse) and defending them. I can't be all of these things, so I suggest that most of them are other peoples projections.

Actually, you can be all of these things. The default nature of (Wo)Man is confusion and contradiction - the state of "Many I's". Haven't you learned anything from the years of participation on CassChat? Haven't you read Gurdjieff and Mouravieff? I would hazard a guess that you have not, because doing something that the group recommends would probably be too much like "agreement" to you.

In this process of circling around the truth, of which we all have a sense, a perspective and some experience to back it up, I see you always taking the moral high ground regarding the OP phenomenon. Perhaps I did indulge in some philosphical speculation, but that was based on my understandings of the literature quoted here, my digestions of it, if you will, trying to incorporate it with things I experienced and thought about for a long time.

I have experienced and thought about it for a long time to, but I have not read heaps of literature on it. That is because it is a new subject (to me). It seems like we are collectively defining a new idea.

Seems to be like everyone is collectively defining it quite well, but Ruth is the odd one out. Is this conscious behaviour on your part? Or do you just run childhood programs of unworthiness that cause you to subconsciously sabotage your relations with everyone you interact with?

Only, I always figured that no ensouled individual could be causal to such a conflict. If you are a potentially individualized person then perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps Adamics can be causal to such a conflict of mutual annihilation, especially when their views place OP's and "ensouled" into irreconcilable polarized camps.

I'm sure lots of 'ensouled' individuals are just like that, because they are STS polarity, not STO. Most things strike a balance in order to exist in equilibrium. That is why there are 50% OPs and 50% others, or at least close enough for equilibrium to exist. Of course, STS isn't the slighest bit interested in conserving equilibrium. Only STO work with others rather than against them.

STO work with others? Doesn't working together involve some sort of "agreement"?

I mentioned that I agreed that there are OP's who are like machines, who do follow the herd, and who seem programed by their instincts.

I don't think these are OPs.

For crying out loud Ruth, this is diametrically opposite to what you said previously in the thread!

There may be a number of qualities that OPs have that non-OPs don't and they don't relate to behaviour.

1. Conformists (looks for 'herds' to join)

Can you explain exactly what it is that you think Ruth? Or could it be that what you think changes from minute to minute depending on whether it fits with your emotional programming about "agreement/disagreement"?

I think, however, that if HALF of all humanity was like this, there would be no humanity at this time. From all you have said having a non-individuated soul (or soul-pool soul) means one is not really a human (humane) being, only looking like one, with the imposter-robots being 50% of the population. This doesn't seem compatible with the complex evolutionary variety I observe in humanity.

I have simplified in order to emphasize. There are also robots, robotoid (as the Cs described VB), wanderers, 4D STO and 4D STS flying around ect. And that's only those in and/or interacting with 3D.

Rubbish. We don't know that any of these things exist.

I can see two types of empathy here, the cognitive and the emotional. One is used by OPs, the other not.

Sez who?

I don't assume that anybody who was anybody actually knew anything just because they wrote something.

Yet you seem pretty happy to accept that there are "robot people", "wanderers", "4D STO and 4D STS flying around etc".

Besides, they might be writing about something that I'm not interested in (such as a totally different subject) when actually I'm interested in psychology, bioelectric energy or maybe even aliens.

After years of interaction with you Ruth, my observation is that you really aren't interested in anything beyond getting people to agree with you. And even if they do, you might just change your mind again so as to disagree with them and be the "individual". Actually, you are one of the least individual people I've ever met. Trying to have a discussion with you is like having an argument with myself at age 16.

And in this comment you revealed the real difference in opinion: that OP's are all of one soul pool in your view. So I ask you: what is YOUR proof?

I'm not sure I should be asked for proof on an opinion that isn't mine even though you have implied that it is and that it is a 'real difference'.

Proof, evidence etc is not really your "thing" is it Ruth? You're more interested in "agreement" and "disagreement".

I think the big difference between you and me Ruth is that I want people to agree with me on their terms. You want them to agree with you on yours.

That about sum it up?

 

[anart]

My understanding of Joe's comment is that the intellectually/emotionally weighted perception of the second monk reflects rather accurately Russ's reaction to Laura's questioning of your evident thought process. The point was not that the monk touched a female, the point was that the monk helped the female cross the river, which she may not have been able to do herself. The monk was acting in an STO manner, in a way, and the other monk could not see past the 'breaking of the rules' to understand what actually occurred. Too much focus on the mechanics of any process, or the perceived rules, often results in a general 'missing out' on the main point.

We simply cannot forget that we are STILL human beings locked into an STS environment and because of that, our perceptions, and more accurately, our reactions to what is said, to what goes on, to what we think, are almost always reactions based in programming or STS influence.

I understood Laura as asking some very relevant questions of Ruth; basically wondering why she finds herself involved with a group based on ideas with which she does not, according to her posts, resonate. Disagreement, confusion, needing to clarify statements and concepts are all valuable and necessary parts of not only learning, but also of group development, but when these confusions and disagreements persist despite many efforts to explain and clarify, one is left wondering why that is. It seems to me, and this is just my perception, but it seems to me that Laura is simply wondering why Ruth's posts always seem to contain contradictory ideas or understandings, even after much effort is expended in helping her to understand why things are stated the way they are - or so it seems to me.

 

[Nathan]

One of the hardest things to do when hearing someone else's observations of your own behaviour that is not complimentary - whether true or false - is to acknowledge them as "possible" and to then discern whether they are in fact true. How? Observe the self. Observing one's own behaviour is invaluable and sometimes we need others to point out our behaviour as we are sometimes not aware. It is difficult to stop our ego getting in the way and initiating 'defence', 'aggression' or 'guilt' programs - programs that are very good at siphoning energy off others - anotherwords, even guilt is a means of control/manipulation. Sometimes, you just have to swallow your pride and observe yourself. It is the only way you can have insight into your own behaviour and stop draining others.

No one is always right. Everyone gets the wrong idea now and then. If I was too afraid of being wrong, I would never post on this forum! There is no need to defend oneself in order to preserve one's pride or ego. Egos are overrated anyway.

Perhaps it might be more relevant if you explained what you mean, lol. You know what happens with all those hypothetical situations people come up with. More than one way of looking at things. By the way Russ may be just pointing out a fact rather than having his buttons pushed...

Im sure you can explain what you really mean a lot better than telling a story which can be viewed in many different ways.

I really don't see how this tale would need to be explained. It seems that you are beginning to disagree for the sake of disagreeing - as is evident with your line by line responses. And, as in the case below, you seem to lose track of what exactly you are arguing about:

1. Conformists (looks for 'herds' to join)

But then, there is the individual I wrote about above who most definitely, absolutely, was NOT a joiner of anything.

How you judge a possible OP and how I judge one seems to be quite different.

I am not in disagreement with your conceptual model of OP's. What you consider OP's IMO are OP's. I believer, however, that not ALL OP's fit your model.

This is probably because you are trying to fit what I've said into YOUR conceptual model.

I agreed that there are OP's who are like machines, who do follow the herd, and who seem programed by their instincts.

I don't think these are OPs.

So, first you argue that OPs are conformists, then when someone agrees with you, you change your mind and argue against your own point. I'm not sure whether you are simply confused, which has led to many contradictions, or you prefer to simply argue for the sake of arguing, regardless of what point you are arguing.

EDIT: Ryan, didn't see your post until I posted mine. Didn't mean to go over the same points you've already gone over! :P

 

[Laura]

Im sure you can explain what you really mean a lot better than telling a story which can be viewed in many different ways.

As Anart and Nathan both pointed out, they immediately got the ABSTRACT point of the tale - but you, Ruth, did not. Your wish to make "caricatures" of the OP issue in order for you to "get it" is also problematical. That is precisely what must not be done. It cannot be caricaturized nor removed from the abstract realm because the very nature of the problem is abstract even if it has very practical applications and implications.

Notice at the beginning of this thread that I quoted some material - a session where two individuals were present and the C's gave strong hints that one or both of them were OPs. They have since gone on to do exactly what you are suggesting: caricaturize the OP question, making "Spot the OP" lists, denigrate, assume a "superior position relative to OPs," etc. All of this is very OP like behavior. It bespeaks the need for a "pecking order" or "food chain."

This is particularly relevant since the other element I have identified: being unable to learn even after years of attempts on the part of others to assist, being unable to grasp an abstract principle and transfer the learning, is also becoming painfully apparent.

 

[Guest]

Ruth, the reason I wrote what I wrote was because I was observing something in your comments on this particular thread that I didn't see on other topics where you contributed, or at least it wasn't apparent to me.

Namely, while you give pretty level-headed comments on other topics, this particular one evokes your ire at times. And I noticed that the more the discussion tends to affirm the complexity of the OP vs. non-OP issue, the more defensive you become. I felt this early on in the discussion, but withheld comment then because I did not want to be jumping to hasty conclusions based on too little input.

As the discussion moved on, however, it became obvious to me that the very suggestion that understanding OP's involves more than just drawing a line and taking sides bothered you. When the discussion gave you fuel to present a simpler, less abstract view of OP's you became more agreeable. When it veered off into difficult to define and label possibilities, you became disturbed.

I don't, personally, see it as a simple matter of agreement or disagreement, because as some of the participators above observed, you contradict your own self at times. Since this discussion began, I have modified some of my original impressions regarding the issue here, and continue to modify them. One idea, however, that has been a kind of conviction for me is that this issue is complex and abstract in essence, and that it would not do credit to the benefits of gaining an understanding of it to package it in a little box and be done with it.

I get the impression, however, that this is what you would prefer. You admit there is disagreement, and I believe that disagreement keeps circling around the issue of complexity vs. simplicity. Before you disagree with me here, please bear with me. You have expressed views on what OP's are, and I guess you are admant about that. So I would like to address the issue from a different perspective.

Issues of STS/STO orientation aside, what do you believe constitutes a potentially ensouled individual? What makes such an individual different from an OP of whatever stage and/or orientation? There have been some suggestions about this in previous comments. Do you agree with them?

If you are an individualized soul, evolving toward crystallization of that soul, how are YOU different than OP's. Please do not answer with "I am ensouled because I am not this or that". Answer in the positive if you can. Kindly express the qualities of the Adamic in the concrete terms you like to reserve for OP's. I expressed some beliefs why I think I am not an OP, and Laura pointed out that those qualities are not necessarily indicative of ensoulment. With the examples she provided I realized "Ok, its time to dive into how complex this issue REALLY must be". For me that was a positive move. You seem to interpret it as a negative one.

Is it because the complex depths of the individualized person, and the inner searchings they will always at some point in their evolution feel compelled to undergo, does not grok with you? It is the need to dive into onself regardless of the risks or discomforts, and meant to lead to a second birth, a soul-realization if you will, that really separates the OP from the potential individual. And until the individual IMO acknowledges that drive to dive, they are probably indistinguishable from some OP's at least.

OP's can go through esoteric searchings and gain benefits from them, and that is how you know IMO that these are OP's. They gain benefits, and benefits (mental, emotional, psychological, physical, psychic, moral or whatever) are their goals. Personally, I think if you ask an OP why they are inclined to the esoteric, they can give you rational reasons for being so. If an Adamic really looks within, however, (aside from whatever else) there will be IMO one primary reason, possibly expressed as "I HAVE NO CHOICE" or "BECAUSE I MUST", or something to that effect.

The difference is for OP's "self realization" is like a kind of therapy or self-betterment. Often there are defined goals. For the Adamic it is an organic need, almost a matter of psychic survival. Most Adamics before they acknowledge this need experience profound crises, sometimes completely internalized, sometimes through external events, often a little of both. Some have a smoother transition. Surely, enduring personal upheavals is not a sign of being ensouled in itself, but these upheavals are often present as an indicator that the road to soul realization is not a choice, but a kind of organic need.

So these are some of my personal views on the matter. They are by no means written in stone, but a coherence of what I have always felt to be true, and that coherence was brought about by this discussion. So, simply put, what do you think? What does soul realization mean to you? I know one natural result for me with a discussion such as this is to apply it to myself, at least pondering the question of where I stand in all of this.

However, labelling is not important. You are what you are no matter what the naming. What is important is understanding. So I for one, want to understand that if you have a much simpler view than I for example regarding 50% of the population, what's your take on the other half?

One more thing. If you can find the time, and I am sure your schedule is busy, it might be best to refrain from answering if you are stressed or tired or otherwise pressed for time. There is no rush here, and such issues do need a bit of quiet meditation. Then we can discuss instead of debating.

 

[Guest]

This is particularly relevant since the other element I have identified: being unable to learn even after years of attempts on the part of others to assist, being unable to grasp an abstract principle and transfer the learning, is also becoming painfully apparent.

Pain is relative, so is experience. And if people simply don't 'get it', why should it be painful? They are what they are and so are we all untill we CHOSE to be otherwise. At some level, people simply wont 'get it' . It's as simple as accepting what ever that level is. I'm not sure how that is painful, unless a person believe (perhaps fools themselves?) otherwise. That would be painful.

Here, I agree with you. Some people simply won't get it because they cannot, and that is probably because it is not within their constitution to do so. I guess the "pain" referred to here (if I understood correctly) is a sort of internal dissonance some of us feel when we realize that a profound understanding intimately tied to the foundations our existence simply cannot be communicated.

It's the pain a person can feel when a close intimate cannot see them beyond two dimensions. When people with soul potential communicate, I would say that that third dimension, the one of depth of communication, is essential for a real understanding between them. To the person realizing that the other simply cannot percieve that third dimension a gap arises between the two. In other words, the first individual knows that they have to deny that third dimension if there is to be any relationship or communication between the two, and thus compromise themselves in doing so.

To me that is painful, and it IS relative, because some people simply cannot comprehend it any more than we can experience more than 3 dimensions with our five senses as they are now. So the choice is between cutting off the communication or compromising with only 2 dimensional exchanges. Eventually, we learn to live with our choices, but at first at least, some pain is to be expected from the situation.

 

[Russ]

I think this may also be relevant:

950723:
A: Before we answer that question, we heard one of you say "pick on Laura
night." That is not the point of any of this. The point is to help you to gain
true knowledge which can only be done by opening up your own channels.
We are more than happy to assist you in any way possible in doing this,
however, it would be detrimental to you to focus in entirely on our assistance
rather than on your own abilities which are truly and completely unlimited.
Now, as far as the perception of being picked on, as you describe it, this is
merely a perception. The process of learning is sometimes difficult when the
greatest amount of progress is being made and we commend Laura for
making efforts to learn that are sincere and persistent. There is no reason to
ever perceive that she, or anyone else present, is being picked on when one
is learning, when one is attempting to gain true knowledge, this may be
perceived as difficult, however, it is, in the long run, very beneficial. And
again, while we may seem to scold, we caution that we do not scold, we
merely direct when asked to direct. And, if we sense that one's mental
energies are diverting or dispersing, oftentimes we return with what seems to
be a rather sharp answer merely in an effort to refocus one's attention.
Because that is the way with which all of you are familiar for that purpose.
As you will now know as you access your memories, it is instinctive in your
minds and in your souls. We suggest that you pause and reflect on this
because you will see, if you do, the truth in what we have said.

I thought it was necessary to bring to light the reasons why Ruth was being "focussed on". I thought it was possible, or likely, that this is how Ruth is/was feeling, and that an explanation would help Ruth to see what was happening. The reason why I asked the question, rather than stating what I thought was happening, was to allow Ruth to see the answer to a question that she was possibly asking, but not posting.