Organic Portals: Human variation

[Sybil]

This is something that worries me because I have had to lie foolishly and do that to avoid something worse when I have come across people like that and I know that say no, can be worse than telling the truth.

When I face a situation like this, I just don't say anything ( I certainly look wiser :D ).

At the same time I wonder what if we are also observing people who are not necessarily OP being influenced in some way due to their emotional weakness and who have lost that battle?

I have known some people who were emerged from emotional turbulence with wisdom and humbleness. While others, only bitterness, and anger. Could it be, that trials are truly the agents of crossroads? You can go down or up. If you go down, you are not ready for the next chapter. If you lost the battle, your soul might don't have the neccessary equipment to self-repair. No one can do it for you. Either has it and do it or not. If you accept the invitation for the same cycle it's your choice. We all have trials, but the difference is how we react to these trials.

So it is possible that even we ourselves adopt certain types of similar attitudes according to the social dynamics to which we are most exposed.

Certainly, it is, in order to fit in an alien environment.

 

[Dave_P]

If you cannot identify yourself with robotic and psychopathic tendencies, could you still be a robot or psychopath? I have yet to come across a psychopath who would identify her/himself as a psychopath. Would it be, that only those who recognize these false and negative tendencies are the ones who are not born with these tendencies?

That's where identification comes into play. let's start from the base that there are people who identify themselves as dogs. would that stop them from being human? I doubt it.

on the other hand, I don't think there are many individuals who consider themselves psychopaths, unless they are diagnosed by specialists. also the C's said that those we see are failed psychopaths, eg, murderers, sociopaths, etc, etc.
It must also be taken into account that many of the so-called psychopaths were people with mental problems, disorders, childhood with violence, among many others.
As for the last question, it may be as you say, how it may not. Each individual makes his decision in different situations, they can be positive or negative and there are thousands of examples of this, as well as combinations for chaos.
In my opinion, one should not jump to conclusions, one cannot know, understand and comprehend the book just by touching the cover.

Would you not think, that those who do try to break the chain are the ones who probably have a full spectrum soul? Questioning the Normal is a healthy indication of something more than being a 'blend

I think it depends on the intention of each one and what motivates them to do it. that's where internal consideration and external consideration come into play.
If you want to cut the chain of totalitarianism you have to keep your eyes open, we know very well that even politicians and governments declared that they were against the totalitarianism of the previous government and when they were elected and assumed the government they did exactly the opposite of what they promised.
It can also make individuals who are against population control and even give speeches in the media to show their dissatisfaction with the policies that are against the freedom of the people, but in reality they want that end to, for example, be free to trade drugs.

Yes, questioning the normal is something beneficial for knowledge. But one has to understand that doubt without curiosity to learn is just that, doubt.
One can doubt absolutely everything, but if you do not put energy into seeking information, learning, understanding and applying it, doubt leads nowhere. doubt alone turns into a whim.
just my point of view

 

[Sybil]

Yes, questioning the normal is something beneficial for knowledge. But one has to understand that doubt without curiosity to learn is just that, doubt.
One can doubt absolutely everything, but if you do not put energy into seeking information, learning, understanding and applying it, doubt leads nowhere. doubt alone turns into a whim.

I full-heartedly agree. Doubt is a dead-end, that's why I used the word. Questioning.
Questioning is an act to obtain information. While doubt is a feeling of uncertainty when we came across something which we might not believe. We ask questions to clear up doubts.

 

[Alma.Innovadora]

When I face a situation like this, I just don't say anything ( I certainly look wiser :D ).

It depends on the context as you describe, it is a matter of survival to a certain environment and situation. Not all situations can be solved by remaining silent. Recently a person with those traits, because I refused to keep allowing her to take up my time reacted irrationally and stole some work equipment from me. I always carried the situation through the conversation, but he even threatened to sue me for harassment, just because I kept asking when he was going to return my things.

If you lend something to support someone, the duty is that they give you back what you lent, right? money, a book, etc. not that they steal from you because the person is upset, under no context a healthy person does that.

I was at the point of anger to take drastic measures because being robbed by a person you trusted, I just wanted to burn his house down! give him what he deserves for doing harm. Of course I wouldn't be able to do something like that but I mean it's part of the emotional struggle of wanting to return a worse damage to see if that way he learns the hard way and sees the damage he is doing as well. So I can say that I am very empathetic, but like everyone, we have too a dark side to control because as I said, the fight is through us and the answer that often leads people to go down is "I'm tired of being good".

Could it be, that trials are truly the agents of crossroads?

That's my question in all of this. There are people who as you say, can bounce back more easily but others choose to pay back the damage that has been done to them. They come back with harmful tendencies. We went through the same process, to a greater or lesser degree. In a certain way and to a certain extent we also act as agents until we become conscious and begin to take control.

These are situations that many people do not give importance to, they see them as trivial, it's just "crazy people" yes, there is some madness, but I want to see precisely beyond that "madness" and how this subtle dynamic works both in others and in oneself, to what extent we are mixed and playing both roles.

 

[Wandering Star]

That's my question in all of this. There are people who as you say, can bounce back more easily but others choose to pay back the damage that has been done to them. They come back with harmful tendencies. We went through the same process, to a greater or lesser degree. In a certain way and to a certain extent we also act as agents until we become conscious and begin to take control.

A phrase from a movie occurs to me: "First we try, then we trust."

Sooner rather than later, that person will ask for something again and you will be ready.

By knowing the attack methods, we can protect ourselves.

 

[Alma.Innovadora]

A phrase from a movie occurs to me: "First we try, then we trust."

Sooner rather than later, that person will ask for something again and you will be ready.

By knowing the attack methods, we can protect ourselves.

Yes, repetition is part of the process. There may come another similar experience with another person as well, another wolf in sheep's clothing. That sentence sums up the process I was experiencing internally and reinforces my thinking that we must trust our instinct and be meticulous with emotions when they get in the way because we will always want to keep the illusion, a buffer, because the blow will always come in the end, thanks for sharing.

For the moments, I can only see to a certain extent that those kind of people are related to what is written about OP, patterns.... their behaviors, what they think, their way of living, what they always identify with, lies, substance abuse, some psychological and emotional problem and even from time to time even something of high strangeness and relationship with numbers, especially 7, in my case.

For each person according to their learning, a great mirror. The kind of experience that makes us reach the critical point necessary to know more about ourselves.

 

[Vinícius]

Although we don't have a proper way to prove this, I think its matter of genetics. When a blue eyes man marries a black eyes woman the son/daughter may born with either light color eyes or very dark color eyes (depending of the family genes of course) so, something like that may occur if an OP marries a souled being, it could be a 50/50 chance that their kid may or may not born with the genes to hold a proper soul. Although the Cs mentioned that, first, the mother usually has more influence than the father in passing down those characteristics, Example; if the mother is a psychopath there is more chance that the son/daughter could born Psychopath as well. And second, is a little unlikely that a person with soul marries an OP, again according to the C's, but it could happen anyways.

1) isn't it mother>son / father>daughter?
2) wasn't it more along the lines of "the soul marries with genetic processes when present" ?

 

[zak]

After reading the comments about the designation of "other race", I agree that it isn't really accurate and so, have changed the header of the thread. I think that OPs are just a variation of types of humans.

As to genetics, the system of recombination of genes seems to me to suggest that being 'fully souled' or not is pretty much subject to that and such can pop up anywhere and OPs too. Genetic inheritance isn't a linear thing.

With the new header, it seemed to me that there was a parallel with this short story by Philip K Dick: Second Variety
Adapted in the 90's on the big screen, and at the time unaware of the OP's, this film remained in my memory.

In spite of their different evolutions to appear more and more human, not only physically, they are able to confront each other, but the most frightening thing is that they are programmed to destroy the humanity on which they are inspired, and all means and forms are good.
And through all these transformations, there is only one thing they have had that distinguishes them from humans from the beginning, their scream.

Here my parallel ends.

 

[Menna]

Well from what I have read there is an Animal Soul Group which MOST humans are made up of and then their is the "Higher Self" Souls that reincarnate cycle back to 3D with intention...and then other miscellaneous variations like Psychopaths and such...

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Lately I have been reading Iain McGilchrist's new book, The Matter with Things. (He is also the author of The Master and His Emissary.) One of the blurbs on the back is from Professor Charles Foster of Oxford University, who writes:

‘It’s very simple: this is one of the most important books ever published. And, yes, I do mean ever. It is a thrilling exposition of the nature of reality, and a devastating repudiation of the strident, banal orthodoxy that says it is childish and disreputable to believe that the world is alive with wonder and mystery. For McGilchrist the universe is a constantly evolving symphony – a gradual unfolding of an epic story. We urgently need to attune our ears to this music – to re-enchant the world and ourselves, and to confound those who say that there is only noise.

No one else could have written this book. McGilchrist’s range is as vast as the subject – which is everything – demands. He is impeccably rigorous, fearlessly honest, and compellingly readable. Put everything else aside. Read this now to know what sort of creature you are and what sort of place you inhabit.’

I'm about 300 pages into this 1500-page opus, and so far, I have to agree. The first book (the book itself is divided into three books, split between 2 volumes) deals with what McGilchrist calls the means or 'portals' to truth, by which he means things like attention, perception, judgment, emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and creativity. He deals with a wealth of research on brain functions, the effects of lesions, all in a way that to me at least never becomes dry or overly technical, like so many other works. But enough of that for now.

One of the things that has always struck me as odd about the OP hypothesis is the idea of a pure 50/50 split. Especially in something as complex and hazy as life and genetics, so open to hazard and chance, such a perfect division always struck me as unlikely - as if there must be some other thing that needs to be taken into account. Even something as deterministic as the 50:50 probability of being born male or female doesn't turn out that way in actual practice. Males consistently make up around 51.3% of births (see this paper). If there's a similar 50:50 genetic split that applies to all humanity, I don't think it's been discovered yet. (On that note, does anyone have any other examples from nature of 50:50 probabilities that result in more or less perfect 50-50 outcomes? I can't think of any and Google results either give me articles on splitting property in divorces, or articles on transgenderism!)

But while reading McGilchrist, I had a crazy idea. Because there IS one consistent 50:50 division in humanity: the brain hemispheres. And that's what he focuses on in the book: the differences in how each hemisphere interacts with and understands reality. And I gotta say, after reading all the evidence he brings forth, the left hemisphere sounds like an OP. Without the right hemisphere to ground it, it consistently misreads reality. It is lazy, arrogant, simplistic, unempathic, uncreative. It's the narrative spinner, the faker, the "right man". The right hemisphere is the source of emotional depth, creativity, the ability to see complex wholes, to understand context, to pick up on social cues. That's just a short list.

So my crazy idea is this (as if the idea of OPs wasn't crazy enough already!): the left hemisphere is the OP. 50% of humanity exactly are OPs, but the division is within each person. As Ark has said before, paraphrased, we're all OPs until we become something more than that. Well, maybe that is truer than we think?

While this has some resonance with the Solzhenitsyn quote about the line between good and evil running through every human heart, it has the potential to be more complex than that. Whether through genetics, brain damage, or culture, some people will be more left- or right-hemisphere dominant. Some might have little to no potential to 'access' certain qualities of the right hemisphere. And the trend over the last 100 or so years has for people to be more left-hemisphere dominant - to our detriment. McGilchrist summarizes the research showing that general intelligence (a RH quality) is declining, and has been for decades. The most gifted and talented are being decimated.

So, to the degree that there is a "master" (the right hemisphere) in proper relation to the "emissary" (the left), and the emissary does not come to dominate the master, a person will no longer be an OP. Until then, there is always the chance that the emissary usurps the master, and a person will remain functionally an OP. There will probably be additional factors affecting the potential and expression of each hemisphere, but for all intents and purposes, we've all got part of us which functions as a shadow of a human being, a fact that becomes very clear when reading all the accounts of lobotomy, RH lesions, and other experimental studies McGilchrist shares.

As I said, though, perhaps it's just a crazy idea!

 

[SlipNet]

This is an interesting development, @Approaching Infinity. I, as a schizophrenic, have two competing central I's within my mind, have done so for over 40 years. Left is arty, colourful, emotional. Right side is intellectual, intuitive, very talkative. I've been working solidly since 2004 to bring these 2 selves into a state of inner harmony, with variable levels of success, small victories in a longer war. I've long suspected that my right brain knows more about objective reality, but feels less. This always motivated me to bring the two halves together, it seemed a natural and logical conclusion. Harder than it seems however! I've been working on this now for 18 years, and my journals are a constant form of reference for me in this task. One part of me feels more, and another part of me thinks and understands more, it's a fine balance. I hear two very different inner voices as a consequence, very different in tone and content.

It's a complicated problem, because I don't want to cause harm to either part of myself, it's about finding a sense of inner harmony. Just defining and consolidating who is in charge appears to be the main problem.

I still read Gurdjieff, and the fourth way continues to guide me in my understandings. I'm a lowly being, a Hobbit, so I tend to mull things over for a while before reaching conclusions. I do wonder if I'm sometimes living in an organic portal consensus reality at times, but I'm always questioning things, weighing things up in the experience. My reading for over 20 years has been huge, and has transformed how I understand the world. We are organic portals, receptive to influence, in our early years of infancy. How we grow from there is idiosyncratic and often vague. Truths can be hard to find. But there's always a pattern that can be tracked, followed and understood. This thread has now got me really wondering if I have a kind of schism between a lazy, complacent self competing with a very sharp, intelligent self that is trying to make me aware of the fact that time's a wasting, and we need to crack on and move forward as a sovereign being.

I need to make an effort at consolidation, reconciling 2 differing tendencies in a generally normal whole. It would be nice to move past the inner friction I feel on occasions. It isn't bad at the moment, but politics reveals a difference also. Left and right on a more obvious level. But not SJW, BLM, none of that nonsense. More subtle, more philosophical. The question of why, why we help each other, rather than just striving for personal genius? They grow differently from the same seed. This is my current task, my big challenge. I don't want to be a complacent OP with esoteric leanings. I want to self-actualise my core self, my inner being, my soul. I want to grow in knowledge and being each day, and continue to develop as each new lesson unfolds.

 

[seeker2seer]

So my crazy idea is this (as if the idea of OPs wasn't crazy enough already!): the left hemisphere is the OP. 50% of humanity exactly are OPs, but the division is within each person. As Ark has said before, paraphrased, we're all OPs until we become something more than that. Well, maybe that is truer than we think?

In the context of the above idea about the left hemisphere being the OP, then does that also mean the lower centers of the 4th Way terminology are also in the left hemisphere? If so, then does that equate the right hemisphere to the fully developed higher centers which the OP does not have the potential to access? Or perhaps the left hemisphere is how the lower centers express themselves? Just more thoughts to ponder in trying to better understand our natures and functions in the Work.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

In the context of the above idea about the left hemisphere being the OP, then does that also mean the lower centers of the 4th Way terminology are also in the left hemisphere? If so, then does that equate the right hemisphere to the fully developed higher centers which the OP does not have the potential to access? Or perhaps the left hemisphere is how the lower centers express themselves? Just more thoughts to ponder in trying to better understand our natures and functions in the Work.

One of the points McGilchrist makes repeatedly is that both hemispheres do similar things, they just do them differently. So there is an emotional component to both, an intellectual component to both, and of course a sensorimotor component to both. But the flavors are much different. Cognitively, the LH is very simplistic. It prefers 'things', rules, similarity, jumping to conclusions, confabulating, acting automatically. To me it resembles G's "formatory apparatus". We'll see what the rest of the book brings to mind, but for now I'd say that it might not be that centers are confined to either hemisphere. But it might be correct to say that the left can only generally express lower centers (primitive emotions, formatory thinking, physical senses and movement), not higher ones, and that at the very least the right is necessary for the development and expression of the higher - perhaps a matter of the proper balance and working together with the left, because left hemisphere damage produces its own pathologies, just not nearly as debilitating as RH damage.

@SlipNet, there's a whole chapter on schizophrenia and what we can learn from it. That's the chapter I'm currently reading. He makes some very interesting observations about it. Most of the problems associated with schizophrenia are very similar to RH damage. The difference is probably the cause. Schizophrenics tend to have less hemisphere asymmetry, so it could be a case of the LH taking over jobs usually done by the RH, and vice versa. Having a sense of the inner duality is apparently fairly common for schizophrenics (even to the point of assigning each half to the left and right sides of the brain or body).

One of McGilchrist's overall arguments is that the current mainstream scientific worldview is RH-deficient. This reminded me of discussions on this thread and elsewhere - that materialism seems to be the natural worldview of a certain type of person (the OP). McG makes a similar argument - it's a LH philosophy. It's the way the LH sees the world.

 

[Niall]

The book sounds like a must-read, so thanks for that, but at first glance your LH-OP idea seems to me like it places too much emphasis on nurture, on an individual's choices and thus the development of their neurological pathways or 'maps' in life, at the expense of nature. We may all be functionally 'OPs' to begin with in some, or even many, respects, but think of all the instances where 'souled humans' stand out as such from a very young age. Even if they 'fail' in life, never actualizing their talents and mucking up their 'life plan', and even if OPs around them 'succeed' by comparison, souled humans have a 'depth' to them that sets them apart, and it's often recognizable to others (if only momentarily) of similar 'depth'.

Whether through genetics, brain damage, or culture, some people will be more left- or right-hemisphere dominant. Some might have little to no potential to 'access' certain qualities of the right hemisphere.

I see you leave open the possibility that it could be down to either nurture or nature whether someone 'grows beyond being an OP', but that issue of 'who has potential or not' is apparently 'pre-determined', thus hardwired, thus taking us back to the question of 'where in the brain' (or DNA) does that difference reside?! From the answers in sessions with the Cs, it seems that OPs can and do 'grow', but over lifetimes and not in some way that is 'genetically switched on' in any given lifetime.

 

[Jones]

I bought the kindle edition. I've only just started and after reading above one question that comes up is what place does the LH/RH model give to mind? The preview in the 'look inside' option on amazon revealed a paragraph that I wanted to highlight and so I think it will be a fascinating read even if that question is not addressed. Thanks for the recommendation.