Organic Portals: Human variation

Niall said:
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'.

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.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to downplay nature. In fact, I think nature is probably overwhelmingly dominant in this area. Even in the case of brain damage, there's a lot of room for biological risk factors/heredity that make certain types of damage 'take' in some but not others. (Raine talks about this sort of thing in Anatomy of Violence.) As for where that potential resides, that's the question. But one thing that stands out for me from my reading on these things over the last year or so is just how complex, murky, and fuzzy the current scientific understanding really is. With the exception of certain diseases that can be traced back to a single gene, the genetics of psychopathology, or even just normal human psychology, is barely in its infancy and much more complex than a lot of geneticists thought it would be in past decades.

The only person I'm aware of who has dealt with this problem (aside from esoteric people like Gurdjieff) has been Dabrowski and his concept of developmental potential, which he thought was hereditary. And based on all his studies, he estimated that only something like 25-30% (if I'm remembering correctly - might have been lower than that) of humans had any real developmental potential. The way I see it at the moment is that this potential might be normally distributed among humanity, like general intelligence, height, or any number of other traits. You have a minority at the bottom with zero (e.g. personality disorders like psychopathy), a minority at the top with lots (like Caesar), and then a whole lot of average in the middle, where the boundaries are probably a lot fuzzier.

The place where individual choice comes into play is that, with the exception of a tiny minority of truly exceptional people, even if you have the potential, you have to work to make it real.
Jones said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can't say much other than that I'm pretty sure he deals with this in part 3. So far on mind, he has limited himself to statements making clear that he doesn't see an identity between brain and mind (he points out that in his clinical experience, those with RH dysfunction are much more likely to refer to their mind as their brain). He quotes Nagel and Whitehead favorably, so he might veer in the direction of panpsychism, but I don't know for sure yet.
 
Another coincidence. This, from the flat-earther thread:
Laura said:
I think the Cs were likely on the money when they suggested that those who really buy into the flat earth business are Organic Portals - souls that have just recently graduated from 2D; due to the 2D perception of that reality, they are unable yet to conceptualize 3D or abstractions such as imagining the globe as round, because it is so large and appears flat locally. They have problems with issues of scale and estimation of distance and time.
Click to expand...
The left hemisphere isn't very good at all of perceiving depth - that's an RH function. The paintings of many artists who suffer a RH stroke come to resemble flat planes - not only emotional but physical depth is lacking. RH damage can leave people without depth perception - they literally see the world as a series of flat planes. It's not so much abstraction (the LH deals practically only with categories and abstractions, not unique and concrete actualities) as it is an actual perceptual incapacity. The perception of time also gets out of whack (not to mention distortions of size, shape, and distance). As McG puts it, the RH is what "deals with the sustained continuity of real experience." "Damage to the RH is responsible for almost all abnormalities of time perception." And "The LH's experience is fragmentary and therefore taken out of the flow of experiential life, and tends toward stasis."
 
Heads up for those who are thinking of getting the kindle version of this book, pages with pictures or graphics don't load and in some cases that means that text is also missing. The first page of each chapter is also missing but at this point it seems as though that just includes the name of the chapter and a quote or 2.
 
Avala said:
Not good. If idea like that hit someone who dont have enough knowledge of that, or for example dont have help of this forum, or just is pathological, could make very bad situation.
Click to expand...

True, but at the same time. Apparently, this hidden truth is not that hidden. It's that obvious! Hence the popularity of the NPC (None playable character) meme.
 
bjorn said:
True, but at the same time. Apparently, this hidden truth is not that hidden. It's that obvious! Hence the popularity of the NPC (None playable character) meme.
Click to expand...
I agree with you there. One big step towards truth, even if it’s tied to all these distortions.
the meme holds power even though it’s just a meme! It’s tangible evidence even if it’s a joke! Lol.

The craziest thing about all this is it’s so hard to even convey this to people without being attacked by hordes of people/OPs defending it. There’s no point imo because the OPs will always influence the crowd like herd dogs. Its the strangest thing!! I feel like all someone can do is drop hints and walk away lol.
 
Steph_rivers said:
The craziest thing about all this is it’s so hard to even convey this to people without being attacked by hordes of people/OPs defending it. There’s no point imo because the OPs will always influence the crowd like herd dogs. Its the strangest thing!! I feel like all someone can do is drop hints and walk away lol
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is where the "don't make too much noise" comes into play. In these times it is also necessary to differentiate to whom certain information is transmitted. if you stand on a corner and start telling the reality of, for example, covid, they will surely not only tell you "unaware that does not care for others" but it is likely that you will end up behind bars for a few hours.
It is one thing to influence by giving clues and quite another to argue to convince. There are many who cannot understand how certain things work, that does not make them ignorant or less, they are simply on a different path / frequency.
Now, an interesting question, how much, how we interact with others, differentiates us from an OP?
 
Dave_P said:
Perhaps this is where the "don't make too much noise" comes into play. In these times it is also necessary to differentiate to whom certain information is transmitted. if you stand on a corner and start telling the reality of, for example, covid, they will surely not only tell you "unaware that does not care for others" but it is likely that you will end up behind bars for a few hours.
It is one thing to influence by giving clues and quite another to argue to convince. There are many who cannot understand how certain things work, that does not make them ignorant or less, they are simply on a different path / frequency.
Now, an interesting question, how much, how we interact with others, differentiates us from an OP?
Click to expand...
I’m done making noise about it…talking about this subject over words is extremely difficult without sounding condescending towards others, it’s not at all the intent. Honestly not putting my two cents in anything is really starting to sound like a great idea. It’s just hard when it appears to be attacking your personal everyday life. You want to speak, but it almost always falls on deaf ears, or ears that take the information as threatening to their existence. It’s a prison, really.. this is what this really is…

To answer your question, Absolutely nothing. There’s not a physical clue. We are completely intermixed with them and the senses we appear to be born with don’t help one bit. The only thing I can notice (and I can’t prove it’s true other than my own perception of it) is how a crowd follows a trend. Wether it be positive or negative.. people just follow it, and it’s very VERY interesting once you see it. But once again, the observation cannot pin point an individual.
 
Steph_rivers said:
Honestly not putting my two cents in anything is really starting to sound like a great idea. It’s just hard when it appears to be attacking your personal everyday life. You want to speak, but it almost always falls on deaf ears, or ears that take the information as threatening to their existence. It’s a prison, really.. this is what this really is…
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean, sometimes it's hopeless, until you realize that many times it's just for ego, wanting to "convince" the other person.
Perhaps the grain of sand is ourselves, we can choose what to be and what not to be, that means that if you begin to realize the loss of energy by engaging in a conversation that they didn't really ask for or information that they doesn't care about, there you have what happens, loss of energy.
Yes, it can be a prison, but you put the bars, maybe if you stop doing that you could realize that giving your opinion without being asked is in vain, that does not mean that the world is lost, it means that You have to control yourself and not get carried away by the pride of "I have the truth, I know something that you don't know".
In short, learning to shut up sometimes gives more victories than defeats, and in the end it is better to remain ignorant than crazy.
If they really ask for your opinion and you can see that they are really interested in what you can say, that is another topic, but you have to keep your eyes open to differentiate a true opinion request from one that is just to generate problems.


Steph_rivers said:
To answer your question, Absolutely nothing. There’s not a physical clue. We are completely intermixed with them and the senses we appear to be born with don’t help one bit.
Click to expand...
When you say "with them" what do you mean?
With this I mean, have you given your grain of sand to the universe in the way of identifying personal programs, attitudes, customs that harm others and proposed to change to be a better " I "? Please, do not take this personally, I am saying in a broad sense, I believe that changing what we do not want to be and what can harm others, is a way of contributing our grain of sand, if we understand ourselves, we can be better for others.
 
Ant22 said:
A bit of a digression but I'm really interested in this book. The copies I've found are £90 and upwards, I was wondering if have you been able to find a more affordable hardcopy maybe?
Click to expand...
Not yet, nope. The book is massive - two 700+ page hardcovers. It's a well-made book - not a cheap hardcover like you get from a lot of academic publishers that still ends up costing an arm and a leg. I'm not sure what the publishing plan is for the book, but presumably a cheaper paperback should be coming eventually. Until then, looks like the kindle might be the most practical option.
 
Approaching Infinity said:
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?
Click to expand...

I've been mulling over this idea since it was posted, and I've liked it, found it very attractive, but... it just doesn't sit well - like having a burdock in the pants, however I move or wiggle, it's still felt stinging the skin. The 'stinging issue' I'm having with above is that the idea of brain hemispheres appears to put too much focus on physicality.

So, was thinking if there is something in a body (or something of a physical body) that makes a difference vis-a-vis OPs and Souled humans, what would that be? And the answer appears to be conscience, i.e. I don't see anything else in our bodies that could make a difference, except having a conscience. When this perception is paired with hearing that psychopaths, big and small everyday ones, have been called "people without conscience" (and Cs called them broken or malfunctioning OPs) I would hypothesize that an OP is in fact person born without a conscience.

On the other hand, a person born with a conscience is not automatically a souled individual, but has a potential to grow into one when conscience is developed and strong enough to engulf the center of gravity and transmute it into magnetic centre, so not only to attract matter as usual, but also to magnetically bring closer or 'pull down' the higher center(s) to it, i.e. seat the soul into the body, OSIT.

Regarding the 50/50 information, i.e. C's answer about the division, they also said (read it in the Wave recently) that gender determination is also just luck, suggesting 50/50 division in that situation also. However, as you said, we know that M/F birth statistics is not perfect 50/50, and to my knowledge, when it comes to Nature, there is no 'perfect randomness' or 'pure chance' in it. The actual situation usually reflects the 'imperfection' of Life itself, be it a simple 'step towards more balanced situation' (natural accommodation of the surrounding circumstances) or/and a conscious intent that changes otherwise clean, undisturbed and exact mathematical probabilities, i.e. pure chances.

With above in mind, here comes a huge guess, in all of its extreme 'political incorrectness': having a 'conscience seed' is pure luck, there is 50/50 chance (without taking given circumstances into account) that a newborn is born with it or without it. Without it, there is no possibility for a soul to seat in the body, and as it is very difficult (almost impossible) to grow a conscience from nothing, it's also very difficult for an OP to 'grow' a soul. OSIT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom