Organic Portals: The Other Race

Peam

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
I've tried to figure out an analogy to the OP's 'no soul'/'group soul' topic and where psychopaths might fit in, so I can understand it better. This is just speculation on my part.

This is how I see it at the moment. Everyone, OP's, adamics and psychopaths, are incarnated with what could be described as 'soul stuff'. Now lets imagine this 'soul stuff' as being analagous to a cup of water.
A baby is born in the material world. Now depending on the genetics, if an OP is a better match, a cup water (soul stuff) is scooped up from the OP soul pool and matched to the baby. But if the cup of water is (on rare occasions) scooped up from near the bottom of the pool, then the cup may contain some mud and dregs. This mixture must also merge with a specific genetics, or possibly a bloodline which is receptive to this muddy mixture. This would be known as a psychopath.

Now these cups of 'water' that are relatively free of mud, has a chance to learn that it can go in a different direction to the other cups of water if it so chooses, and starts to do so in a small way, sort of like it begins to recognise the three lower centers of instinct, emotions and thinking. So when it goes back to the pool, it finds it no longer fits as much as it did before, it's becoming an individual cup.

These cups might only become individuals and separate from the pool at the end of a cycle where a quantum jump occurs. So what we now call adamics might have been OP's in the last cycle, and there may be no way we could know how many cycles we've actually had to go through up till now.

All this is hypothetical though.
 

anart

The Living Force
MIke said:
Can they be used as a portal as STO? I think no since this would go against free will
You'd be correct on this one, because STO simply doesn't work that way. They work within the natural flow of things, and only give guidance or assistance/influence when sincerely asked. It seems really cool to me, because STO seems to have enough confidence in creation to not worry - to not even consider manipulation and control as a way to go about things - when I grow up, that's how I want to be. ;)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Mike said:
Anart said:
The issue you seem to be bringing up is whether the growth or development of a soul necessarily means that the soul would choose an STO orientation, and I think that this is a valid issue.
"more likely" seems to point out that a soul can grow by interacting with 4D STS. I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around how it could happen though. I also consistently fall back to the notion that a souled individual is something positive; instead of it is what it is and can be STO or STS by choice.
I see soul growth as a kind of puberty where the individual undergoes to embody the full meaning of having an individualized soul expressed through their genetics. Puberty IS a good thing, but it is also a transition where the teenager is confronted with many choices regarding their evolving body/minds. In this period the individual learns their true nature and potential and makes choices based on that learning.

Being an individual-in-becoming does not guarantee STO, but when there is a growing understanding (as opposed to misunderstanding) of one's own nature and potential it is more likely that choices will move the individual in that direction.

Q: (L) Well, I have heard that dolphins, porpoises and whales have very advanced souls. Is that true?
A: All souls are advanced.
Q: (L) But are whales sentient, thinking, self-aware as humans are?
A: Apples and oranges.
Interesting that the brains of marine mammals are larger with respect to body mass than those of humans. However, the neural architecture is completely different (I don't remember the details), so it really does seem to be a case of apples and oranges.

Peam said:
I've tried to figure out an analogy to the OP's 'no soul'/'group soul' topic and where psychopaths might fit in, so I can understand it better. This is just speculation on my part.
The analogy expressed here is a decent one in principle. In my view, the soul essence in materialized beings stems from a non-local Soul Source or source of all souls. As I see it, genetics act as soul gate dynamics that express this source through the body. I do not believe that the soul essence can be associated with mud because in itself it is incorruptible. Corruption comes through the way the genetic gates express it through body/mind.

In individuals genetics have the potential to express the soul as a holographic microcosmic simulacrum of the divine source, modulated by individual form, and this potential needs to be cultivated and activated. In OP's the expression is more diffuse. Instead of a holographic simulacrum of divine source, it is a portion of a soul-field of that source, and incomplete in itself.

In this case expression is dependent on patterns of behaviour that maintain ecosystemic coherence in the greater soul-field. In other words, the OP is more dependent on hard-wiring to sustain their existence because the soul expression in one particular body is insufficient to drive it solely on its principles.

The psychopath, on the other hand has faulty "wiring" and focuses a parody of the soul essence or even a substitute pattern. The C's expressed that all beings have soul access in one form or another, and psychopaths probably have so much interference regarding soul coherence that whether or not there is a diffuse or individualized soul potential, it is alienated from the person's sense of self. The soul energy may still sustain consciousness, but it has no input. It is probably why the psychopath is so desperate for external sources of self-affirmation at all costs.

Because the soul-expression is more diffuse in OP's it stands to reason that corruption is more prevalent than in those with individualized potential. I would think, however, that an idividual with warped genetics of individualized potential would be far more dangerous, since the soul connections that do exist more active in the lower centers would flood energy through corrupt genetic patterns making them more intense, amplifying the darkness as it were.

anart said:
MIke said:
Can they be used as a portal as STO? I think no since this would go against free will
You'd be correct on this one, because STO simply doesn't work that way. They work within the natural flow of things, and only give guidance or assistance/influence when sincerely asked.
I believe STS makes OP's portals by forcing its way through. These individuals do not have the capacity to sustain concentrated energies of STO or STS. They might accept STO influence in a manner compatible with their soul-pool capacity, but since it is a soul-pool it stands to reason that organic portals must evolve in groups, and STO influencing one person would have to influence the rest because it would be aligned with the natural soul-energy distribution.

STS, however, would act like a dagger piercing through the individual genetic dynamics of the "chosen" OP, hence either also influencing the group by proxy or alienating the individual from the soul-pool. Perhaps this is when the OP "breaks down" and becomes a psychopath. STS influence may be milder and does not do any permanent damage, but a more focused possession is probably an act of psychic violence.

"Black Magicians" invoking demons and making pacts with them might be more individualized people using their higher genetic focus to keep just this side of the possession line, but I doubt if they can resist the wear-down for long.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Ruth said:
OPs are like children who will probably most likely never 'grow up' or find their higher chakras. Non-OPs are the adolescents with lots of emotions and hormones complicating their lives. I just simply cannot get my head around the idea: OPs=bad behaviour=bad people=problem. As I haven't seen the rational for it. And this goes for the one "We're all OPs untill we chose not to be". That's not what I've been observing and the 2nd statement seems to justify the first one when the first one quite obviously expresses STS behaviour not OP 'behaviour' what-ever OP 'behaviour' is.... lol.
I wish it were that easy. Sure, there are people exactly as you describe, helpless, clinging, so easy to spot. What I've been observing is quite different: as the C's said, the best ones can take YEARS to discover. I hope that you don't toss that off as easily as you toss off so many other important points.

In fact, it strikes me that your assessment is more reflective than insightful. Very often, you, yourself, come across as a person stuck in the "Terrible Twos" who likes to be deliberately obtuse or argumentative just because you can. Having raised five children through this, I do have a pretty good handle on the chief characteristics.

You also tend to want easy, cut and dried solutions and very much resist anything complex. You seem to have some difficulty formulating abstract principles. Your reasoning is not fluid, abstract, it is rather more "black and white" or simplistic, like that of a child. You seem to want the answers to be easy, and when you discover complexity, you react against it like a two year old stamping his/her feet and saying stubbornly "no." Yes, all of this is "dressed up" in adult words, but the principle is the same.

Does that mean you are an OP?

I don't think so. It's not that simple.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Laura said:
I wish it were that easy. Sure, there are people exactly as you describe, helpless, clinging, so easy to spot. What I've been observing is quite different: as the C's said, the best ones can take YEARS to discover.
In the context of all of this information I've been trying to figure out if my parents (one of which is still in life), were/are OP's or compromised individuals. My first instinct was "they're definitely OP's". Then I figured they must be people with individualistic potential that compromised themselves. Now I am not so sure of that, and tend to seeing them as OP's who emulated individualistic principles to set themselves apart. I still can't say with any conviction.

What I do know is that they have/had a strong conviction that conscience is for fools, and if you want to survive you have to give it up. On the other hand, they have often patted themselves on the back for not compromosing their principles, saying things like "oh well, I guess we're stupid, and can't help working against our best interests".

In terms of assessing myself, I know this: It seems to be my karma to be presented with lucrative career opportunities in defense research, and all those around me constantly giving the thumbs up and encouraging me (no, pushing me) in that direction. "Work for the MAN or fail, starve, be humiliated, be a loser". I was and am surrounded by such people, relatives, colleagues, friends, close intimates. I have been promised the moon and the sky as long as I dedicate my creativity to the "defense" machine.

So there was absolutely no practical reason why I should not do this. The ONLY reason why I chose a more difficult path resulting in isolation and having my immediate social environment turn against me or at least away from me was that I could not live with myself under the terms of these "offers". I mean, I have to look at myself in the mirror every day, and I cannot divorce myself or move away. And if upon hearing of all these war casualites all over the world I had to reflect that I played a role in making bigger and better murder weapons...well life would be a lie, a betrayal and a conscious alliance with all I hold abominable. I would not even have the excuse of ignorance or making a "mistake".

So having moved through all this, and still moving through it, I do think in moments of private reflection that probably an OP would have taken the first lucrative job offered because of financial and social benefits, the esteem provided, the accolades. They would have probably made a bunch of exuses about it, unless perhaps they were constantly faced with the results of their actions in their face. If, however, as was presented to me, the OP person could live in a nice upper suburban isolation with the loving spouse and children at their side (2-car garage and pets included), in a clean neighborhood with colleague pals in nice labcoats and fashionable lesure-wear, the "see no evil, hear no evil", monkey reflex would have set in.

Yet for me, even if the whole world cheered me on, even if I only watched FOX News to keep my reality boxed in, even if there was no shred of indication around me, I WOULD KNOW. I would know it was all a sham, like the shiny skin of an apple rotten to the core. My parents seemed to make decisions based on principle and patted themselves on the back for them, and yet they still found a conformist nitch where they could make a deal with themselves that they did the right thing (kind of have the pie and eat it too). In my case, the "opportunities" were so either/or that it is almost like a kind of karmic conspiracy.

When I was about five, I had a recurring dream of being in a room with relatives who would leave and go to another room. Finally, I would be left alone in this first room, and would eventually wander to the other room wondering what was up. It seemed in the dream that everyone in the first room was a real person when with me. When they disappeared it was as if they were somehow abducted into the "other room".

I would then find them all gatherred in that other room, looking like living corpses. This was my whole family tree back to my great grand parents. "It's time for you to join us", my great grandmother would say from a throne-like chair, "You are unacceptable as you are". To me this proposition was akin to a death sentence, or having to give up something so precious, life would be as death without it. I would always wake up in a cold sweat if not outright screaming from this.

It was experiences like these that drew me to the information regarding OP's and ensouled. The issue certainly isn't that simple. Personally, however, if I was an OP I believe I would have seen it as being precisely that simple or at least simpler then it seems now. Part of me cannot help occasionally wondering if they are not better off in their own way, somehow more adapted, while those of greater individualized soul potential cannot simply adapt. They have to grow through a tangle of challenges.

Personally, I would like to think that an intelligent and healthy OP should have no trouble understanding what they are (in their own terms). Any possibility of this happening would, however, be undermined if the OP phenomenon is placed in a derogatory and oversimplified context. I do believe also that the "computer program" or "automaton" analogy can go too far here.

In any case, if such a hypothetical OP individual could accept themselves it would be a deep contribution to a discussion such as this. Anything an individual with soul potential can address, an OP can address at least in theory, although the manner of how they address it and their conclusions may be different and maybe radically so. I would not hesitate to refer myself as an OP or feel it lessened my humanity in any way if I did not have so much (often painful) experience that makes me believe otherwise.

I guess another topic where OP's and Individualized would differ is how they approach the issue of evolutionary difference. Perhaps an OP tends to view difference in terms of hierarchy or a kind of pecking order, and is hence motivated to place themselves in a favourable to them position in that order. Perhaps an ensouled person would, on the other hand, feel a strong connection with all life and would understand their place in it in a different way: something like a well-defined pattern in an otherwise grand tapestry where all threads are of the same fabric.

So maybe my thought regarding constructive discussion with OP's regarding the OP phenomenon may be unrealistic wishful thinking when so much input in the ensouled state exists in this forum. Such a thing could be confusing to any OP, and they could be tempted to put themselves as "ensouled" and those they deem OP's in some sub-category in relation to themselves.

Personally, I've rarely been irritated by OP's who just want to live their "normal" lives as long as I don't irritate them first by trying to drag them into issues and understandings to which they can't and do not want to relate. I just know that I cannot be happy living exclusively among such people because respecting their wishes means I have to deny myself. I have met people who indicated that issues of deeper meaning are important to them, and who took it for granted that the whole point of interest was to be "cultivated" in some fashion and hence "superior" (viewing such cultivation as a tool for a better material life or a favoured position with respect to others).

So again, telling OP's from those prone to individuality is not a simple matter, and personally I am glad that that is the case. Indeed, I believe that one sign of being individuality-prone is that one is not daunted by complexity, and in fact appreciates it in all situations. Life, in fact, is quite complex, and entropy quite simple (it is far easier to destroy than it is to create).
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Goodness, so many good points to think about…

EQ said:
In the context of all of this information I've been trying to figure out if my parents (one of which is still in life), were/are OP's or compromised individuals. My first instinct was "they're definitely OP's". Then I figured they must be people with individualistic potential that compromised themselves. Now I am not so sure of that, and tend to seeing them as OP's who emulated individualistic principles to set themselves apart. I still can't say with any conviction.
That’s the thing I have noticed myself. One day I’ll be doing a mental recapitulation about this or that person – family members included – and asking myself “could it be?” And in some cases, I might say “yup, it’s certain” because the events listed in my mind, the behaviors, the clues emerging from the individual, etc, seem to say definitely “yes, OP!”

The next day… or hours later, I’ll remember other things in relation to that person that say the exact opposite.

Now, there ARE a couple of people that no matter how I think about them, every single clue adds up to OP. I even spend a lot of time trying to search for memories of clues that would contradict this conclusion. One person in particular I have known for almost 40 years and it truly amazes me when I look back and see how consistently I “filled in the blanks” of their character with my own beliefs about who and what they were inside. There are a couple of other “long term studies” that I have been mulling over. Once I have a few samples firmly in the category in my mind, I’m going to then start looking for anything that could be considered a common factor.

EQ said:
What I do know is that they have/had a strong conviction that conscience is for fools, and if you want to survive you have to give it up. On the other hand, they have often patted themselves on the back for not compromising their principles, saying things like "oh well, I guess we're stupid, and can't help working against our best interests".
That could as well be the “many I” manifestation talked about by Gurdjieff. But then, OPs very likely have many “roles” as well.

EQ said:
In terms of assessing myself, I know this: It seems to be my karma to be presented with lucrative career opportunities in defense research, and all those around me constantly giving the thumbs up and encouraging me (no, pushing me) in that direction. "Work for the MAN or fail, starve, be humiliated, be a loser". I was and am surrounded by such people, relatives, colleagues, friends, close intimates. I have been promised the moon and the sky as long as I dedicate my creativity to the "defense" machine.

So there was absolutely no practical reason why I should not do this. The ONLY reason why I chose a more difficult path resulting in isolation and having my immediate social environment turn against me or at least away from me was that I could not live with myself under the terms of these "offers". I mean, I have to look at myself in the mirror every day, and I cannot divorce myself or move away. And if upon hearing of all these war casualites all over the world I had to reflect that I played a role in making bigger and better murder weapons...well life would be a lie, a betrayal and a conscious alliance with all I hold abominable. I would not even have the excuse of ignorance or making a "mistake".
Well, that’s not evidence for or against OPism, I don’t think. The individual mentioned above that I am almost SURE of could have said the same things. In fact, that was one of the things that made me initially think that he was like me… the “rebel factor.” When he once told me how he went AWOL from the Army because the whole Army thing was rotten, I was just certain that this was due to some deep conviction. It was all words. Later I learned that he went AWOL because it was hunting season and he couldn’t get a legal pass.

So, there I was attributing all this nobility of self, strong conviction, compassion and so on to an incident when all the while he was going out to kill for sport. Sheesh!

But then, of course, he would discourse at great length on the wonders of the natural world and how hunting was a good thing because it “culled the genetically weak” from the population. He was a great naturalist with impressive knowledge of the animal kingdom. He also had almost supernatural courage in the face of situations that would have turned most men into jelly. Only over time did I come to realize that this courage wasn’t exactly that, it was something more like an inability to think abstractly about consequences.

This individual was also quite passionate about “natural food” and “natural lifestyles” and totally against any use of fertilizers or pesticides. He read about these things quite a bit and could cite chapter and verse on the subject. He was very much into healthy eating, physical fitness, non-smoking, non-drinking, very active, had an excellent vocabulary and loved to talk and be the center of attention, but not in a bad way.

He was generally kind and sympathetic to anyone with obvious troubles, but was unable to comprehend emotional pain at all. If a person was in rags or on crutches, he would do anything to help them. But if another person was suffering grief at the loss of a love one, he simply couldn’t grok it. He could express sympathy for starving orphans, and gave generously to various religious organizations that supposedly fed third world children, but he could not think about their possible mental suffering. If they had food and clothing and a roof over their head, as far as he was concerned, they were “taken care of.”

I could go on about the person, but I think you get the idea. In the end, after 40 years of observation, I never saw him express a single word or act of human kindness towards another person that was not based on material considerations ONLY. I never heard him say a word about anyone being depressed or unhappy for psychological reasons and if it was brought to his attention, his solution was that they needed to get out in the air and sunshine and “get over it.”

Another thing: he was a “born again Christian” and read the Bible every day and quoted it extensively when the situation warranted. He was convinced he had a soul and that he was going to do everything possible to make sure he went to heaven.

I wish I could convey better the strange and growing sensation that I had over the years that, in spite of all of this “external” normality, there was “nobody home.”

EQ said:
So having moved through all this, and still moving through it, I do think in moments of private reflection that probably an OP would have taken the first lucrative job offered because of financial and social benefits, the esteem provided, the accolades. They would have probably made a bunch of exuses about it, unless perhaps they were constantly faced with the results of their actions in their face. If, however, as was presented to me, the OP person could live in a nice upper suburban isolation with the loving spouse and children at their side (2-car garage and pets included), in a clean neighborhood with colleague pals in nice labcoats and fashionable lesure-wear, the "see no evil, hear no evil", monkey reflex would have set in.
Well, not only an OP, but a “non-OP” who has been thoroughly programmed by the family, system, culture, etc. They might take it, and it might take years of them struggling to be “with it” before they finally broke down and realized that it was killing them for some reason. I know that I spent years trying to be “normal” according to the standards set by my family, my culture, the “mainstream reality.” And it very nearly killed me. As most people raised in narcissistic families, I was completely out of touch with my true feelings about anything. I had been told since infancy how I was supposed to feel and react to everything, and I tried mightily to get the square peg in the round hole. I don’t think I would have taken a job that hurt people – even if I was a couple of removes away from it - though. Maybe an OP would, and maybe not. The individual discussed above would certainly not have taken such a job “on principle.”

EQ said:
Yet for me, even if the whole world cheered me on, even if I only watched FOX News to keep my reality boxed in, even if there was no shred of indication around me, I WOULD KNOW. I would know it was all a sham, like the shiny skin of an apple rotten to the core. My parents seemed to make decisions based on principle and patted themselves on the back for them, and yet they still found a conformist nitch where they could make a deal with themselves that they did the right thing (kind of have the pie and eat it too). In my case, the "opportunities" were so either/or that it is almost like a kind of karmic conspiracy.
For me, the awareness of the rottenness of the apple under the skin only grew over time. I started out with a basically sunny disposition, anxious and willing to please others, to do all I could for them, and convinced that this was all it took to be happy. If you are nice to other people, they will be nice to you. If you do things for other people, when you need help, they will do for you. And strangely, no matter how many times this proved not to be the case, I was still convinced that it was TRUE and that I just had to try again and again. I would go through horrible periods of pain and suffering from the cruelty of other people, mostly wondering what was wrong with me, what had I done wrong, and then, I would pull myself out of it and go out and it would happen again.

So, over time, the awareness grew in me that the fairy tale I had been told about life was just that: a fairy tale.

EQ said:
Personally, however, if I was an OP I believe I would have seen it as being precisely that simple or at least simpler then it seems now. Part of me cannot help occasionally wondering if they are not better off in their own way, somehow more adapted, while those of greater individualized soul potential cannot simply adapt. They have to grow through a tangle of challenges.
I think you are right. It reminds me of William James discussion of “healthy minded” people:

"At our last meeting, we considered the healthy-minded temperament, the temperament which has a constitutional incapacity for prolonged suffering, and in which the tendency to see things optimistically is like a water of crystallization in which the individual's character is set. We saw how this temperament may become the basis for a peculiar type of religion, a religion in which good, even the good of this world's life, is regarded as the essential thing for a rational being to attend to. This religion directs him to settle his scores with the more evil aspects of the universe by systematically declining to lay them to heart or make much of them, by ignoring them in his reflective calculations, or even, on occasion, by denying them outright. Evil is a disease and worry about evil is a disease in itself. Even repentance and remorse.. may be but sickly impulses.

"Let us now... turn towards those persons who cannot so swiftly throw off the burden of the consciousness of evil, but are congenitally fated to suffer from its presence. ...there are different levels of the morbid mind... there are people for whom evil means only a maladjustment with things, a wrong correspondence of one's life with the environment. Such evil as this is curable... by either modifying the self or the things or both at once. There are others for whom evil is... a wrongness or vice in [their] essential structure, which no alteration in the environment, or any superficial rearrangement of the inner self, can cure, and which requires a supernatural remedy. On the whole, the Latin races have leaned more towards the former way of looking upon evil, ...while the Germanic races have tended rather to think of Sin in the singular, and with a capital S, as of something ineradicably ingrained in our natural subjectivity, and never to be removed by any superficial piecemeal operations.

"...we speak of the threshold of a man's consciousness in general, to indicate the amount of noise, pressure, or other outer stimulus which it takes to arouse his attention at all. One with a high threshold will doze through an amount of racket by which one with a low threshold would be immediately waked. Similarly, when one is sensitive to small differences in any order of sensation, we say he has a low 'difference threshold.' His mind easily steps over it into the consciousness of the differences in question. And just so we might speak of a 'pain threshold' a 'fear threshold,' a 'misery threshold,' and find it quickly overpassed by the consciousness of some individuals, but lying too high in others to be reached by their consciousness.

"Goethe [expressed] 'I will say nothing against the course of my existence. But at the bottom it has been nothing but pain and burden, and I can affirm that during the whole of my 75 years, I have not had four weeks of genuine well-being. It is but the perpetual rolling of a rock that must be raised up again forever.

"And Martin Luther said: 'I am utterly weary of life. I pray the Lord will come forthwith and carry me hence... rather than live forty years more, I would give up my chance of Paradise.'

"The only relief that 'healthy mindedness' can give is: 'Stuff and nonsense! Get out into the open air! Cheer up, you'll be all right if you will only drop your morbidness!' But, to ascribe spiritual value to mere happy-go-lucky contentment is but the very consecration of forgetfulness and superficiality. Our troubles are that we CAN die, that we CAN be ill, that we ... need a life not correlated with death, a health not liable to illness, a good that will not perish... said a friend: 'The trouble with me is that I believe too much in happiness and goodness and nothing can console me for their transiency.'

"[And so those who experience] a little cooling down of animal excitability and instinct, a little loss of animal toughness, a little descent of the pain threshold, brings the worm at the core of all our usual springs of delight into full view, and turns us into melancholy metaphysicians.

"[And so those who experience] a little cooling down of animal excitability and instinct, a little loss of animal toughness, a little descent of the pain threshold, brings the worm at the core of all our usual springs of delight into full view, and turns us into melancholy metaphysicians.

"Conceive yourself, if possible, suddenly stripped of all the emotion with which your world now inspires you and try to imagine it as it exists, purely by itself, without your favorable, hopeful or apprehensive comment. It will be almost impossible for you to realize such a condition of negativity and deadness. Whatever of value, interest, or meaning our world may appear endued with are pure gifts of the spectator's mind. [For example] love transforms the creature loved as utterly as the sunrise transforms Mont Blanc from a corpse-like gray to a rosy enchantment. [So with our emotions] if they are there, life changes.

"In Tolstoy's case the sense that life had any meaning whatever was for a time wholly withdrawn. The result was a transformation in the whole expression of reality. When we study the phenomenon of regeneration, we shall see that a not infrequent consequence of the change is a transfiguration of the face of nature in his eyes. ...An urgent wondering and questioning is set up, a poring theoretic activity, and in the desperate effort to get into right relation with the matter, the sufferer is often led to a solution...

"Tolstoy writes: '...I was neither insane nor ill. On the contrary, I possessed a physical and mental strength which I have rarely met in persons of my age. I could mow as well as the peasants, I could work with my brain eight hours uninterruptedly and feel no bad effects. And yet I could give no reasonable meaning to any actions of my life. And I was surprised that I had not understood this from the very beginning. My state of mind was as if some wicked and stupid jest was being played upon me by someone. One can live only so long as one is intoxicated, drunk with life but when one grows sober one cannot fail to see that it is all a stupid cheat. What is truest about it is that there is nothing even funny or silly in it; it is cruel and stupid, purely and simply. But perhaps, I said to myself, there may be something I have failed to notice or to comprehend. it is not possible that this condition of despair should be natural to mankind. And I sought for an explanaton in all the branches of knowledge acquired by men. I questioned painfully and protractedly and with no idle curiosity. I sought, not with indolence, but laboriously and obstinately for days and nights on end. I sought like a man who is lost and seeks to save himself - and I found nothing. I became convinced, moreover, that all those who before me had sought for an answer in the sciences have also found nothing. And not only this, but that they have recognized that the very thing which was leading me to despair - the meaningless absurdity of life - is the only incontestable knowledge accessible to man.'

"The only thing that need interest us now is the phenomenon of this absolute disenchantment with ordinary life... when disillusionment has gone as far as this, when one has tasted of the fruit of the tree, and the happiness of Eden never comes again... the only happiness that then can come is something vastly more complex, including natural evil as one of its elements. The sufferer is born again as a deeper kind of conscious being than he could be before.

"Having arrived at this point, we can see the antagonism that must arise between the 'healthy-minded' optimist and the morbid-minded who take the experience of viewing evil as essential. To the latter, 'healthy-mindedness' seems unspeakably blind and shallow. To the former, the latter seems seems unmanly and diseased. They believe that there is something almost obscene about these children of wrath and cravers of a second birth. And, if religious intolerance, hanging and burning at the stake, were still in vogue, there is little doubt that the 'healthy-minded' would advocate the destruction of the morbid minded rather than the other way around.

"The method of averting one's attention from evil, and living simply in the light of good is splendid as long as it will work. ...yet there is no doubt that 'healthy-mindedness is inadequate as a philosophical doctrine, because the evil facts which it refuses positively to account for are a genuine portion of reality; and these evil facts may be, after all, the best key to life's significance, and possibly the only openers of our eyes to the deepest levels of truth.

"The lunatic's visions of horror are all drawn from the material of daily fact. Our civilization is founded on the shambles and every individual existence goes out in a lonely spasm of helpless agony. To believe in the carnivorous reptiles of geologic times is hard for our imagination - they seem too much like museum specimens. Yet there is no tooth in any one of those museum skulls that did not daily hold fast to the body struggling in despair of some fated living victim. Forms of horror just as dreadful to the victims fill the world about us today. Here, on our very hearths, the infernal cat plays with the panting mouse or holds the hot bird fluttering in her jaws. Crocodiles, pythons and rattlesnakes are vessels of life as real as we are; and whenever they or other wild beasts clutch their living prey, the deadly horror which the morbid minded feels is the literally right reaction to the situation.

"...Since the evil facts are as genuine parts of nature as the good ones, and our philosophic presumption should be that they have some rational significance, then systematic failure to accord these things active attention is less complete than those systems that attempt to include these elements in their scope. The 'healthy-minded optimists only need to be born once, but the 'sick souls' need to be born twice to be happy.

"In the once born, the world is a one-storied affair... whose parts have just the values which they appear to have... [to the twice born] the world is a double-storied mystery. Natural good is not simply insufficient in amount and transient, there lurks a falsity in its very being. It keeps us from our real good and renunciation and despair of it are our first step in the direction of the truth. There are two lives, the natural and the spiritual and we must lose the one before we can participate in the other."
So it was for me. And now, I wonder if this distinction that James has made is not one of our best clues?

EQ said:
Personally, I would like to think that an intelligent and healthy OP should have no trouble understanding what they are (in their own terms). Any possibility of this happening would, however, be undermined if the OP phenomenon is placed in a derogatory and oversimplified context. I do believe also that the "computer program" or "automaton" analogy can go too far here.
Yes. And I don’t think that the OP concept should be placed in a derogatory light. This comment has led to a lot of thoughts that I wonder if I should even express…

EQ said:
In any case, if such a hypothetical OP individual could accept themselves it would be a deep contribution to a discussion such as this. Anything an individual with soul potential can address, an OP can address at least in theory, although the manner of how they address it and their conclusions may be different and maybe radically so. I would not hesitate to refer myself as an OP or feel it lessened my humanity in any way if I did not have so much (often painful) experience that makes me believe otherwise.
Referring, I expect, to the same issues described by William James above.

EQ said:
I guess another topic where OP's and Individualized would differ is how they approach the issue of evolutionary difference. Perhaps an OP tends to view difference in terms of hierarchy or a kind of pecking order, and is hence motivated to place themselves in a favourable to them position in that order. Perhaps an ensouled person would, on the other hand, feel a strong connection with all life and would understand their place in it in a different way: something like a well-defined pattern in an otherwise grand tapestry where all threads are of the same fabric.
Well, I’m not sure about that. I think it might depend on the “soul pool.” The individual I described above absolutely revolted against any “human” hierarchy, but clung to the religious faith like a drowning man to a straw.

EQ said:
So maybe my thought regarding constructive discussion with OP's regarding the OP phenomenon may be unrealistic wishful thinking when so much input in the ensouled state exists in this forum. Such a thing could be confusing to any OP, and they could be tempted to put themselves as "ensouled" and those they deem OP's in some sub-category in relation to themselves.
Exactly so. I have noticed the tendency of individuals that I suspect of being OPs to attempt to simplify the matter in the extreme, to try to find hard and fast rules, to create “checklists” and so forth.

Yes, I would like to find a common characteristic even if it is terribly abstract, but haven’t yet.

EQ said:
Personally, I've rarely been irritated by OP's who just want to live their "normal" lives as long as I don't irritate them first by trying to drag them into issues and understandings to which they can't and do not want to relate.
This is a big one, I think. I came to realize that trying to get someone who is “healthy minded,” as James would have said, to face reality AS IT IS, is just simply torturing them. It’s like trying to make a dog understand calculus and beating him if he doesn’t.

EQ said:
I just know that I cannot be happy living exclusively among such people because respecting their wishes means I have to deny myself. I have met people who indicated that issues of deeper meaning are important to them, and who took it for granted that the whole point of interest was to be "cultivated" in some fashion and hence "superior" (viewing such cultivation as a tool for a better material life or a favoured position with respect to others).
Know exactly the type. And that is another reason I say it is not so simple. They can speak the words, but they do not know the music.

EQ said:
So again, telling OP's from those prone to individuality is not a simple matter, and personally I am glad that that is the case. Indeed, I believe that one sign of being individuality-prone is that one is not daunted by complexity, and in fact appreciates it in all situations. Life, in fact, is quite complex, and entropy quite simple (it is far easier to destroy than it is to create).
And I think that OPs, depending on soul pool connection, can be on the “upward track” or the downward path… some can be very creative, generous, kind, loving (within certain parameters) intelligent and even interesting to talk with up to a point. I think they can be totally “healthy minded,” or they can be psychologically damaged by their upbringing just as secondary psychopaths can be “created” by environment and lack of nurture. They can run the gamut of expression just like individually souled humans. But in the end, they lack a certain thing and maybe one way to describe it is that they are unable to LOOK AT THEMSELVES with some other, greater part of themselves – because they just don’t have it.
 

Ben

Jedi Council Member
Following on from the idea of the difficulty of trying to discern OPs from 'individualised', I had a thought that this may be neccessary for their evolutionary development. Because an OP is essentially here in 3rd density to emulate characteristics which they do not yet have by interaction with souled individuals might this process be compromised if it were easy to identify them? - as 'individualised' may treat them differently if they were aware. Of course it is useful to identify probable OPs because of their increased potential to act as attack conduits, but obviously the majority of people have not even heard of them let alone developed the udnerstanding neccessary to go about this. I couldn't help but think this was part of the intention of creation to give the OP an 'equal chance', for want of a better expression. Perhaps this is quite obvious to some.
 

vinny

The Living Force
This whole idea of consistently not being able to abstractly apply one situation to another, to not ever be able to think out of the box, to be emotionally 'disconnected', and not really 'self aware'. And at the same time being a perfectly 'nice' person...

This all reminds me of a friend of mine, who I am no longer in touch with but knew for years, who I (and others) suspect had a marginal case of Aspergers Syndrome. It was very strange to observe, over the years as I got to know him

I don't know if this IS related to the issue of OPs, but there were enough similar points to make me sit up and take notice, so I've pasted some basic details.

from http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aswhatisit.html
What Is Asperger Syndrome?
By Barbara L. Kirby

Asperger Syndrome or (Asperger's Disorder) is a neurobiological disorder named for a Viennese physician, Hans Asperger, who in 1944 published a paper which described a pattern of behaviors in several young boys who had normal intelligence and language development, but who also exhibited autistic-like behaviors and marked deficiencies in social and communication skills. In spite of the publication of his paper in the 1940's, it wasn't until 1994 that Asperger Syndrome was added to the DSM IV and only in the past few years has AS been recognized by professionals and parents.

Individuals with AS can exhibit a variety of characteristics and the disorder can range from mild to severe. Persons with AS show marked deficiencies in social skills, have difficulties with transitions or changes and prefer sameness. They often have obsessive routines and may be preoccupied with a particular subject of interest. They have a great deal of difficulty reading nonverbal cues (body language) and very often the individual with AS has difficulty determining proper body space. Often overly sensitive to sounds, tastes, smells, and sights, the person with AS may prefer soft clothing, certain foods, and be bothered by sounds or lights no one else seems to hear or see. It's important to remember that the person with AS perceives the world very differently. Therefore, many behaviors that seem odd or unusual are due to those neurological differences and not the result of intentional rudeness or bad behavior, and most certainly not the result of "improper parenting".

By definition, those with AS have a normal IQ and many individuals (although not all), exhibit exceptional skill or talent in a specific area. Because of their high degree of functionality and their naiveté, those with AS are often viewed as eccentric or odd and can easily become victims of teasing and bullying. While language development seems, on the surface, normal, individuals with AS often have deficits in pragmatics and prosody. Vocabularies may be extraordinarily rich and some children sound like "little professors." However, persons with AS can be extremely literal and have difficulty using language in a social context.
Diagnostic Criteria For 299.80 Asperger's Disorder

A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity

B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning

D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)

E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood

F. Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia
'A More Down-to-Earth Description

by Lois Freisleben-Cook

I saw that someone posted the DSM IV criteria for Asperger's but I thought it might be good to provide a more down to earth description. Asperger's Syndrome is a term used when a child or adult has some features of autism but may not have the full blown clinical picture. There is some disagreement about where it fits in the PDD spectrum. A few people with Asperger's syndrome are very successful and until recently were not diagnosed with anything but were seen as brilliant, eccentric, absent minded, socially inept, and a little awkward physically.

Although the criteria state no significant delay in the development of language milestones, what you might see is a "different" way of using language. A child may have a wonderful vocabulary and even demonstrate hyperlexia but not truly understand the nuances of language and have difficulty with language pragmatics. Social pragmatics also tend be weak, leading the person to appear to be walking to the beat of a "different drum". Motor dyspraxia can be reflected in a tendency to be clumsy.

In social interaction, many people with Asperger's syndrome demonstrate gaze avoidance and may actually turn away at the same moment as greeting another. The children I have known do desire interaction with others but have trouble knowing how to make it work. They are, however, able to learn social skills much like you or I would learn to play the piano.
 

Ronnie

Jedi
Well Vinny, check this out, the Word "Disorder" appears in both . This is known as RAD or AD as far as I can tell. Under the age of 18 RAD, Over the age of 18 Psychopath.

Functioning of the Child
with Attachment Disorder


1. AD children deeply believe that their very survival depends on their being in control of other people and situations most of the time. AD children make a decision, early in life, probably not consciously, that they will NEVER be in a helpless position again. They seek to orchestrate not only events, but the very feelings and behaviors of those closest to them. They will work very hard to control the adults’ attention. This control can appear in many forms, including: oppositional / defiant behavior, passive aggressive behavior, withdrawal and withholding of information, hairsplitting semantic arguments, giving false information, sexualized behavior, aggressive behavior, infantile behavior, bizarre behavior, appearing “confused”, vague / circular / unintelligible language, noisemaking, running away, avoiding physical contact, etc.

2. Hypervigilance is commonly seen in AD children. Hypervigilance is the directing of a significant proportion of energy, attention, and thinking towards monitoring the external environment. Being hypervigilant, AD children tend to scan situations very quickly for cues and then make interpretations of entire situations based on only one or two details. This can lead to responses that are way off base. Because of the energy it consumes, hypervigilance limits an AD child’s awareness of what is happening inside herself and interferes with the ability to think reflectively, problem solve, or respond appropriately to external demands. Hypervigilance can be broken down into two kinds: threat hypervigilance and resource hypervigilance. AD children who are threat hypervigilant feel a constant sense of lurking danger and are always scanning situations for possible sources of danger. Those who are resource hypervigilant feel a terrifying sense of inner emptiness, almost as if they don’t really exist. As a result, they are always searching out their environments for external resources to “validate” or “prop up” their sense of existing. This validation is obtained by getting others to interact with, or attend to, them in some way. In the absence of such external support, these children begin to feel like they are disappearing, almost as if they were turning into ghosts. This causes their anxiety to rapidly mount. In situations in which they are not sure how to respond, resource hypervigilant children will scan the environment for clues as to how to assemble their response.

3. AD children have tremendous difficulty tolerating emotional experience of any kind. It is their own emotions that they experience as potentially deadly though this thought usually lies beyond everyday awareness. Thus, their "24-7" struggle for survival, while outwardly framed as being against the world, is truly against their own emotional experience. Different emotions are seen as the deadliest for different children; for some it is shame; for others it is sadness; for others it is rage; and for others still, it is anxiety. Often, AD children cannot distinguish one feeling state from another, and different emotions can easily bleed one into the other. Their emotional regulatory skills are primitive at best; and hence, behavior unravels quickly in the presence of feelings. AD children in general have very high levels of anxiety, and this anxiety is very easily aroused. Its arousal will activate a given youngster’s control mechanisms, and behavior will likely deteriorate.

4. Not knowing what to do is a potent source of anxiety for AD children and triggers familiar controlling behaviors as a way of escaping the sense of not knowing what to do. It is for this reason that happiness and other positive experiences can be so problematic for AD children. Lacking experience with feeling positive, AD children resort to misbehavior, not so much to ruin the happiness per se, but to escape the anxiety of not knowing what to do. New situations are also threatening because the child lacks a blueprint for how to behave.

5. Helplessness and sadness are, for AD children, equated with worthlessness. This is one more reason they go to such lengths to avoid these experiences. Anything they acknowledge sadness or helplessness about becomes “evidence“ of their worthlessness that could be used against them.

6. When emotionally stimulated, AD children’s thinking can deteriorate very rapidly. They often drop to the level of the concrete thinking of a toddler and truly cannot understand more complex language that they normally could understand. Their thinking can get disorganized enough that they border on, or have, miniature psychotic breaks in order to blot out their feelings. When their emotional reaction passes however, they can recollect themselves in the literal blink of an eye. AD children often see the source of their emotional arousal as an enemy who was trying to overwhelm them on purpose. This can result in an aggressive counterattack.

7. To protect themselves from their own own threatening feelings, AD children learn to dissociate or disconnect themselves from their own experience in the present moment. They seem able to almost slide their psyches up and down the developmental scale as circumstances warrant. AD children can appear to shut down parts of their brain in ways the average person cannot comprehend. This is denial in its most fundamental, absolute form- experience itself is erased from consciousness as though it never happened {this primitive denial is beyond the reach of conventional forms of treatment and a major reason why such treatment fails with AD children}. AD children learn how to move and hold their bodies so as not to trigger physiologically stored emotions and memories. Threatening questions, as well as any possible answer that might have immediately arisen can be obliterated right out of awareness. Overall, this dissociative response is made up of many different tactics including: increased distractibility and fidgeting {can look like AD/HD}; becoming confused; circular answers; vague or contradictory language; inaudible or unintelligible speech; loss of short-term memory; shutting down one or more of their sensory processing systems so they literally don’t experience their own sensory input {can look like learning disabilities except that processing can improve dramatically as attachment develops}; immature and/or faint tone of voice; loss of eye contact; eyes becoming dreamy, glassy, empty, steely/piercing, or blank; body becoming markedly more limp or rigid; and bodily preoccupations which serve to shut out the external world {picking at skin, scabs, bug bites; fingernail chewing, itching and scratching, hair twirling, aches and pains, repetitive movements, playing with fingers}.


8. Outwardly, AD children present themselves as "victims of life" who are responsible for nothing. Inwardly, these children feel responsible for everything that has happened to them; and this generates overwhelming shame. Avoiding this shame is one reason AD children deny all personal responsibility. Closely connected to this shame is a deeply felt {though usually out of awareness} self-hatred. This self-hatred presents a formidable obstacle to accepting love or caring from anyone when it is offered. The offering of love triggers a strong sense of not deserving it, and so it must be rejected along with the person offering it. In fact, the adult offering love may be looked at as rather dumb for offering love to such an awful child. More likely, the AD child, believing that he doesn’t deserve anything of value from another, will perceive the love being offered as something hurtful being trickily packaged by the adult. In either case, the love and the adult are rejected; and the AD child remains caught in the bind of continuing to protest about what he is not getting, but being unable to accept it when it arrives.

9. AD children generally lack integrative thinking. They view life as random. Everything just happens. They have difficulty seeing connections between things, internally or externally. They also do not connect things across time. Hence they often do not grasp things like cause-effect, actions-results, the impact of their behavior on others, sequential events, etc. AD children have enormous trouble managing complexity. When faced with complex situations, they become anxious and deteriorate both behaviorally and cognitively. Their thinking can drop to the concrete thinking of a preschool child (sliding down the scale). AD children do not even see their own behavior as stemming from choices they have made. Their behavior is like everything else: events that just happen to them. As a result, the concept of personal responsibility seems like literal nonsense to AD children.

10. In terms of time, AD children generally live in the "eternal now". They don’t perceive time as being continuous, with each moment passing into the next. Instead, each moment stands alone, disconnected from all others. This is the time sense of the fight / flight / freeze crisis reaction workings of the oldest, most primitive parts of the brain where much of the thinking of AD children goes on. Connections between past and present don’t get made, and thus there is no learning from experience. Instead, the past gets imported directly into the present with no recognition that this is happening. As a result, the present is mistaken for the past, over and over and over. As for the future, it simply doesn’t exist.

11. In terms of conscience / values, AD children typically possess little to none. They have not had the building block experiences with early caretakers out of which conscience grows. In terms of present priorities, conscience is of little value in the pursuit of survival.

12. Behavior can vary dramatically across situations depending upon the emotional significance of the people involved and the situational expectations for relating emotionally. Generally as the emotional importance of others present, or the expectations for relationship increase, the AD child's behavior deteriorates. This is why their behavior is usually worst at home with their families.

13. AD children view learning as having minimal value except as it enhances their survival skills. Consequently, they have a striking lack of curiosity about exploring the world. The first thing they are apt to do with any new information is to try to figure out if it can be used to generate any new self-protective control strategies.


POWER

1. AD children believe that they have power beyond anybody else's. They need to believe this in order to assure themselves that they can maintain the “24-7” control that they believe their survival requires. Hence, they are prone to engage in misbehavior ot power struggles. Like a toddler, AD children derive power simply out of saying "No". In addition, AD children believe they have the power to define reality itself. It is this belief that allows them to deny a misdeed that an adult caught them in the middle of performing. In the AD child's mind, his denial "rewrites history". If he says that it didn't happen, then it didn't. The adult is essentially told that he didn't see what he saw because it never happened.

2. Information is power and AD children know this very well. They will go to great lengths to control the flow of information about them in order to maintain their power to manipulate others' image of them. AD children give out very little real information about themselves, for they view that as giving away their power to others. Telling the truth, therefore, is to be avoided as a matter of policy. Much of their fabricating is intended to keep adults confused about what's real and what isn't. When asked questions, AD children often stall by “playing dumb” or “forgetting”, hoping that the adult will get impatient and give a prompt or clue around which the child can fashion an answer that will please the adult while giving away no information.

3. AD children sometimes believe that they literally possess "mind reading radar". Just by looking at an adult, they believe they can determine what the adult is thinking and planning on doing. They often react to these “radar-based conclusions” and such reactions can look like they came completely out of the blue to anyone else involved in the situation.

4. When AD children escape consequences and / or responsibility, they usually see this as "proof" of how powerful they are. When they are disciplined or given consequences they can't escape, they interpret this as a personal failure {"I wasn't powerful enough or clever enough to get myself out of that situation}. This in turn can trigger a feeling of helplessness and the subsequent efforts at control this brings.


INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS / AUTHORITY FIGURES

1. AD children harbor a pervasive distrust of others. The more an adult seeks to earn an AD child's trust, the more dangerous that adult is likely to appear because efforts to earn trust are usually seen as elaborate "tricks" hiding an intent to hurt the child.


2. Love is defined as weakness and sometimes used against those who offer it. Sympathy or empathy is understood by AD children as entitling them to receive whatever they want from the sympathetic person. Then, if what they want is not offered, the child takes that as proof of adults' dishonesty and as a legitimate basis for revenge. Sympathy or empathy may also be seen as “pity”, and in this case, an angry counter-response is likely.

3. Other people are often seen as essentially interchangeable and are evaluated on the basis of, "What have you done for me lately?". Past history carries little or no weight (time perception). Thus, an AD child’s attitude towards anyone else can change minute-to-minute depending on what you most recently have or haven’t done for her.

4. Adults, as a rule, are viewed as unreliable, unintelligent, and rejecting, if not outright abusive. Adults who are giving to an AD child are generally thought of simply as resources to be exploited. Authority figures are seen as especially threatening should they gain any measure of control over the child. AD children have no faith in anyone's control but their own. This leads them to avoid asking for help when they truly need it because that creates a dangerous context of dependence.

5. Discipline is viewed as arbitrary and intended to humiliate the AD child, and so it only provides further proof that adults cannot be trusted. Discipline is also seen as a failure on the child's part to have effectively manipulated his way out of the situation, and thus it pricks the shame of the AD child. This potential of adult authority figures to activate the AD child's shame is part of what makes them seem so threatening.

6. AD children are likely to assume that if they have not been directly prohibited from engaging in any given behavior beforehand, no matter how outlandish, then it is alright. If consequences are subsequently imposed, the AD child will see this as a betrayal and protest that he was set up by the adult. Similarly, AD children are liable to interpret adults who simply disagree with them as literally lying to them. In both instances, they will see the “adult crimes” as giving them the right to retaliate.

7. For AD children who need external validation of their sense of existing, this validation is often obtained through repetitive nuisance behaviors such as chattering on, asking numerous questions, interrupting, minor behavioral infractions, minor property damage, claiming to forget to get others to tell them things repeatedly, stealing of objects of little value, etc. The purpose of all these nuisance behaviors is to keep others engaged.

8. AD children frequently use "blackmail" to control adults by implying, or stating outright, that if the adult does as the child wishes, then the child won't get angry and make trouble for that adult in that situation. On the other hand, should the adult block the child’s wishes, then there will be hell to pay. This “blackmail” can also take the form of guilt induction, particularly in relation to mothers.

9. AD children often display indiscriminate affection towards strangers, and this serves several purposes. It is a tool of “personal image management” to get others to see the child as charming, polite, etc. This created image can be used to foster the illusion that the parents are the source of the problems at home since such a “charming child” could not possibly be at fault. Indiscriminate affection is also used as a way to procure attention and gratification from others who “don’t know any better”. It is also one more way for the AD child not to be real- just another disguise pulled from the closet.

10. AD children commonly inquire of authority figures what will happen if a given rule is broken. The purpose here is to gather information to be used to maneuver around that adult in the future. More immediately, the child may use the answer given to conduct a little “cost-benefit analysis” to decide if the contemplated misbehavior is worth the price. This is one reason why being somewhat vague about the range of possible consequences is useful- it blocks this cost-benefit analysis.

11. During what is termed the honeymoon period in a new situation, AD children generally seek to gather information about parents’ and other adults’ weaknesses / vulnerabilities. This information is used subsequently in efforts to wield influence. In general, AD children are skilled at doing this because their years of hypervigilance have made them keen observers of adult behavior and vulnerabilities.

12. AD children by and large use their behavior to manage interpersonal closeness * distance.

13. Peer social skills are mostly, to entirely, lacking in AD children. Friendships, if made at all, usually last only for a brief time. AD children too often seek to dominate peers or set them up to get in trouble with no understanding of the likely future consequences for the friendship. Then when peers later reject, tease, or avoid the AD child, she does not understand why and feels victimized.


IMPACT ON THE FAMILY

1. The parent in the primary caretaking role generally receives the brunt of the child's acting out as she is usually seen as the symbol for all of the ways adults have failed the AD child previously. Behavior is typically better when the other parent is home. This can create parental conflict, wherein the parents see each other as either minimizing problems or overreacting. The child will nourish this split and take full advantage of it to exercise control over the parents.

2. AD children who have been adopted are quite capable of blending their internal images of adoptive mother and birth mother without any recognition that they are doing so. It is almost as if they look at adoptive mother and see birth mother. In interacting with his adoptive mother, the AD child applies beliefs, feelings, and behaviors that developed with his birth mother, while thinking that he is interacting with his adoptive mother in present time. It is important that parents and child become aware that this mixing up of mothers is going on inside the child and that the maternal images get separated out, identifying birth mother with then and adoptive mother with now.

3. Because AD children give so little back in return for parenting efforts, parents often go through a progression of feeling selfish for wanting a return on their investment, then guilty, then ineffective, and finally enraged. This eventually leads to intense parental ambivalence that can include strong wishes to hurt the child or put the child out of the family.

4. Because AD children are so skilled at charming others, and because the parents are struggling so hard, extended family and friends often offer little support and may even blame the parents for the child's extreme behavioral problems at home. Worse still, professionals all too often make this same mistake.

5. AD children have a knack for ruining most planned, pleasurable, family activities, partly because they don’t know how to engage in such activities, partly because they fear being overlooked if everyone else is enjoying themselves, and partly because they are terrified of handing their parents the power to give them happiness.

6. If there are siblings, eventually they become jealous and angry about the amount of family resources in terms of time, attention, energy, and money that the attachment disordered sibling is using up and are likely to ask the parents to get the AD child out of the family.

http://www.attachmentdisordermaryland.com/attachmentdisorder.htm
 

Nathan

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
The way this is going, "Organic Portals: The Other Race" may end up becoming a topic itself!

The talk of graphs and bell curves from the beginning of this post led me to draw up a little "who goes where" map of sorts. The x axis denotes STS/STO and the y axis denotes density (and between densities). The purpose of this was so that I could have a fundamental understanding of where OPs fit in. I welcome anyone to have a look and point out errors. After seeing how confusing the topic of OPs can become and how easily one can grab the wrong end of the stick, I think it is better to correct any misunderstandings as soon as possible - especially for such a complex issue - otherwise one's understanding of more intricate concepts would be akin to painting a vibrant masterpiece with only two colours.

Nonetheless, I do have a few thoughts so far...

The difficulty with "checklists" is that we could draw up endless personality tests in an attempt to discover who is an OP and who isn't, but there are so many unique variables that the same method in which you had identified one OP would not work at all on another. My thoughts are that these "clues" appear to be dependent on particular soul pools. A clue that applies to an OP from one soul pool may not necessarily apply to another. And if soul pools is a factor to be taken into account, there could be other factors too.

We appear to be in search of a common characteristic that all OPs share. This would save us a great deal of time and frustration, but is there a common characteristic? I certainly hope so but would it really be that simple? If identifying OPs was an easy puzzle, it wouldn't be as rewarding to piece together. I guess that explains why it can take years of careful observation to discover them. In my experience, it has taken years anyway and even at this point, I can never be certain.

Laura said:
One day I’ll be doing a mental recapitulation about this or that person – family members included – and asking myself “could it be?” And in some cases, I might say “yup, it’s certain” because the events listed in my mind, the behaviors, the clues emerging from the individual, etc, seem to say definitely “yes, OP!”

The next day… or hours later, I’ll remember other things in relation to that person that say the exact opposite.
This is interesting to me because I have had a similar experience with a former close friend of mine who I have known for five years. It has only been in the last year that I had begun to observe his behaviour and was almost convinced that he was an OP (he is an easy one to pick, mind you, being obsessed with money, always talkng about himself - even asking about you as a precursor that allowed him to talk about himself, using everyone around him to feed his ego, etc.), however, just when I would draw the conclusion that he was definitely an OP, I would recall the genuine things he had done that had no hidden agenda or motives attached. Then it dawned on me that these acts of caring and giving seemed to take place so that everyone would think, 'Oh, he's not all bad. He did do this, this and this.'

But, back on topic...

So far, we have been trying one puzzle piece after another - one characteristic after another, and when they match one piece, the other no longer fits. Anotherwords, the characteristics do not apply to all OPs. The first way to approach this is to continue trying all the pieces until you finally discover one that fits completely.

Some examples of clues suggested so far include:
- Inability to look at themselves with some other, greater part of themselves.
- Difficulty empathising with another's emotional pain
- Difficulty in comprehending abstract concepts
- Tendency to simplify things that are by their very nature impossible to simplify

Another approach would be to identify the pieces that do not fit and discard those, thus revealing the pieces that potentially do.

But perhaps there is another approach, completely different to these, that requires some lateral thinking?
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Ruth said:
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)
2. Unable to look deeply or see anything past the obvious, usually physical thing. And if there is something there, to see or investigate, they want it explained to them in 'black and white' (simplistic) terms like a program so they can 'adopt' it and 'run' it.
3. Ability to reflect back at non-OPs the types of behaviour that a non-OP would like to see (this is part of 'fitting in' and being accepted into the herd)
4. Almost always focused on physical needs and things owned. The physical world is something they can understand. That which lies 'beyond' is very difficult for them to understand, unless they have an underlying 'need' to fit into (for them) a 'herd' which requires knowledge of some of these beliefs.

So, a person undertaking no. 4 may have an emotional reason to adopt membership of an organisation with ridgid beliefs (more than likely a non-OP), or a physical 'need' to join a herd and get presented with a set of rules (a program) to live by (more than likely an OP).
But then, there is the individual I wrote about above who most definitely, absolutely, was NOT a joiner of anything. He detested groups and "herd behavior." Even his "fundamentalist Christianity" had to be "different." He found fault with just about any church he ever attended. So, he pretty much would go now and again as a "loner," and proclaim that he was just going because it was a "place of worship" and HE knew that the rest of the people there didn't have a clue. Most of the time, however, he would just read the Bible and say that being out in nature was his "church."

He was also totally against focus on ownership. Things didn't matter to him at all. I think that if he could have dispensed with all possessions and lived out in the wild he would have been perfectly happy. He did, in fact, spent quite a bit of time doing that...

Vinny said:
This whole idea of consistently not being able to abstractly apply one situation to another, to not ever be able to think out of the box, to be emotionally 'disconnected', and not really 'self aware'. And at the same time being a perfectly 'nice' person...
The "emotionally disconnected" and "not self aware" need to be further defined. Notice that a person who reacts emotionally to things they can see or "identify with" will come across as having a full field of emotional reactions. They can talk with great feeling about the starving children in Third World Countries, or about the terrible conditions of War and so on. They might even be able to move large numbers of people with their words about such things. For example, an OP might easily express themselves as Martin Luther King or even Mahatma Gandhi. They could also be a Carl Sagan type. Notice that I am not saying that any of these three individuals IS an OP. What I am saying is that unless you lived very close to them over a long period of time, you would not be able to tell. Certainly, they could have great depth to their "social movement" ideas because that would be natural for a soul pool being especially if the soul pool is one that reflects "herding" instinctual substratum.

But there are also soul pools that do not connect to any kind of "herding" instinct. One has to keep that in mind.

The "self awareness factor" also needs a few words. Being "self aware" does not necessarily relate to a person not being able to perceive their social interactions with others or not having a good sense of space or eye contact. Those things are abnormailities and what we are looking for is something that is so completely "normal" and ordinary that it escapes detection. What EQ wrote above is very important to remember. It is all too tempting to place the phenomenon into a "derogatory and oversimplified context."

The "self awareness" that I refer to is something deeper than just being able to figure out that "when in Rome, do as the Romans."

There are a couple of things I would like to mention. It seems that one key (going back to William James' discussion), is that most Organic Portals have no real inclinations at all other than to pursue the “A influences” (Mouravieff’s term) otherwise known as the social norms, such as money, sex, marriage, fame or any of a host of other “ideals” that we are all encouraged to strive for from an early age. The attainment of these goals is held up in global society as the culmination of the search for happiness, yet it is evident from the state of our world today that true happiness remains as illusory and elusive as ever…at least for those who have an inkling that there is “something more”.

We also need to note here that striving after "A influence" goals does not HAVE to be money, sex, marriage, fame, etc as my example indicates.

Having that inkling that there is something more - and here I don't mean the simplistic, "magical" thinking of religion and other cultic or ritual presentations of that "something more" - but really more like what was described in the Matrix: "a splinter in the mind" - seems to be part of the differential diagnosis.

In Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous, there is a discussion of a "type" referred to as Obyvatel.

Gurdjieff's first mention of the Obyvaytel occurs toward the end of a discussion of what he refers to as "External Considering." External considering is part of the creation of a "Strategic Enclosure" where the work on the self can proceed away from the prying eyes and prurient curiosity of the masses which has proven to be so dangerous to the esotericist at various points in history. The reference is as follows:

"Right external considering is very important in the work. It often happens that people who understand very well the necessity of external considering in life do not understand the necessity of external considering in the work; they decide that just because they are in the work they have the right not to consider. Whereas in reality, in the work, that is, for a man's own successful work, ten times more external considering is necessary than in life, because only external considering on his part shows his valuation of the work and his understanding of the work; and success in the work is always proportional to the valuation and understanding of it.

Remember that work cannot begin and cannot proceed on a level lower than that of the obyvatel, that is, on a level lower than ordinary life. This is a very important principle which, for some reason or other, is very easily forgotten.
Then, later in the book there is another reference:

The fourth way is still more difficult. In order to give the fourth way a right valuation a man must have thought and felt and been disappointed in many things beforehand. He ought, if not actually to have tried the way of the fakir, the way of the monk, and the way of the yogi previously, at least to have known and thought about them and to be convinced that they are no good for him.

It is not necessary to understand what I say literally. This thinking process can be unknown to the man himself. But the results of this process must be in him and only they can help him to recognize the fourth way. Otherwise he can stand very near to it and not see it

"But it is certainly wrong to say that unless a man enters one of these ways he has no more chances. 'Ways' are simply help; help given to people according to their type. At the same time the 'ways' the accelerated ways, the ways of personal, individual evolution as distinct from general evolution, can precede it, can lead up to it, but in any case they are distinct from it.

"Whether general evolution is proceeding or not is again another question. It is enough for us to realize that it is possible, and therefore evolution for people outside the 'ways' is possible.

Speaking more correctly there are two 'ways.' One we will call the 'subjective way.' It includes all four ways of which we have spoken. The other we will call the 'objective way.' This is the way of people in life.

You must not take the names 'subjective' and 'objective' too literally. They express only one aspect. I take them only because there are no other words."

"Would it be possible to say 'individual' and 'general' ways?" asked someone.

"No," said G. "It would be more incorrect than 'subjective' and 'objective' because the subjective way is not individual in the general meaning of this word, because this way is a 'school way.' From this point of view the 'objective way' is much more individual because it admits of many more individual peculiarities. No, it is better to leave these names— 'subjective' and 'objective.' They are not altogether suitable but we will take them conditionally.

"People of the objective way simply live in life.

They are those whom we call good people. Particular systems and methods are not necessary for them; making use of ordinary religious or intellectual teachings and ordinary morality, they live at the same time according to conscience.

They do not of necessity do much good, but they do no evil.

Sometimes they happen to be quite uneducated, simple people but they understand life very well, they have a right valuation of things and a right outlook. And they are of course perfecting themselves and evolving. Only their way can be very long with many unnecessary repetitions." [...]

"It often seems to people of the 'way,' that is, of the subjective way, especially those who are just beginning, that other people, that is, people of the objective way, are not moving. But this is a great mistake.

A simple obyvatel may sometimes do such work within him that he will overtake another, a monk or even a yogi.

"Obyvatel is a strange word in the Russian language. It is used in the sense of 'inhabitant,' without any particular shade. At the same time it is used to express contempt or derision—'obyvatel'—as though there could be nothing worse.

But those who speak in this way do not understand that the obyvatel is the healthy kernel of life. And from the point of view of the possibility of evolution, a good obyvatel has many more chances than a 'lunatic' or a 'tramp.' Afterwards I will perhaps explain what I mean by these two words. In the meantime we will talk about the obyvatel.

I do not at all wish to say that all obyvatels are people of the objective way. Nothing of the kind. Among them are thieves, rascals, and fools; but there are others. I merely wish to say that being a good obyvatel by itself does not hinder the 'way'

And finally there are different types of obyvatel.

Imagine, for example, the type of obyvatel who lives all his life just as the other people round him, conspicuous in nothing, perhaps a good master, who makes money, and is perhaps even close-fisted. At the same time he dreams all his life of monasteries, for instance, and dreams that some time or other he will leave everything and go into a monastery. And such things happen in the East and in Russia. A man lives and works, then, when his children or his grandchildren are grown up, he gives everything to them and goes into a monastery.

This is the obyvatel of which I speak.

Perhaps he does not go into a monastery, perhaps he does not need this. His own life as an obyvatel can be his way.

"People who are definitely thinking about ways, particularly people of intellectual ways, very often look down on the obyvatel and in general despise the virtues of the obyvatel. But they only show by this their own personal unsuitability for any way whatever. Because no way can begin from a level lower than the obyvatel.

This is very often lost sight of on people who are unable to organize their own personal lives, who are too weak to struggle with and conquer life, dream of the ways, or what they consider are ways, because they think it will be easier for them than life and because this, so to speak, justifies their weakness and their inadaptability.

A man who can be a good obyvatel is much more helpful from the point of view of the way than a 'tramp' who thinks himself much higher than an obyvatel.

I call 'tramps' all the so-called 'intelligentsia'— artists, poets, any kind of 'bohemian' in general, who despises the obyvatel and who at the same time would be unable to exist without him.

Ability to orientate oneself in life is a very useful quality from the point of view of work.

A good obyvatel should be able to support at least twenty persons by his own labor. What is a man worth who is unable to do this?"

"What does obyvatel actually mean?" asked somebody. "Can it be said that an obyvatel is a good citizen?"

"Ought an obyvatel to be patriotic?" someone else asked.

"Let us suppose there is war. What attitude should an obyvatel have towards war?"

"There can be different wars and there can be different patriots," said G. "You all still believe in words. An obyvatel, if he is a good obyvatel, does not believe in words. He realizes how much idle talk is hidden behind them. People who shout about their patriotism are psychopaths for him and he looks upon them as such."

"And how would an obyvatel look upon pacifists or upon people who refuse to go to the war?"

"Equally as lunatics! They are probably still worse."

"A good deal is incomprehensible to you because you do not take into account the meaning of some of the most simple words, for instance, ' you have never thought what to be serious means.

Try to give yourselves an answer to the question what being serious means."

"To have a serious attitude towards things," someone said.

"That is exactly what everybody thinks, actually it is exactly the reverse," said G.

"To have a serious attitude towards things does not at all mean being serious because the principal question is, towards what things? Very many people have a serious attitude towards trivial things. Can they be called serious? Of course not.

"The mistake is that the concept 'serious' is taken conditionally. One thing is serious for one man and another thing for another man. In reality seriousness is one of the concepts which can never and under no circumstances be taken conditionally.

Only one thing is serious for all people at all times. A man may be more aware of it or less aware of it but the seriousness of things will not alter on this account.

"If a man could understand all the horror of the lives of ordinary people who are turning round in a circle of insignificant interests and insignificant aims, if he could understand what they are losing, he would understand that there can be only one thing that is serious for him—to escape from the general law, to be free.

What can be serious for a man in prison who is condemned to death?

Only one thing: How to save himself, how to escape: nothing else is serious.

"When I say that an obyvatel is more serious than a 'tramp' or a 'lunatic,' I mean by this that, accustomed to deal with real values, an obyvatel values the possibilities of the 'ways' and the possibilities of 'liberation' or 'salvation' better and quicker than a man who is accustomed all his life to a circle of imaginary values, imaginary interests, and imaginary possibilities.

"People who are not serious for the obyvatel are people who live by fantasies, chiefly by the fantasy that they are able to do something. The obyvatel knows that they only deceive people, promise them God knows what, and that actually they are simply arranging affairs for themselves—or they are lunatics, which is still worse, in other words they believe everything that people say."

"To what category do politicians belong who speak contemptuously about 'obyvatel,' 'obyvatels' opinions,' 'obyvatels' interests'?" someone asked.

"They are the worst kind of obyvatels," said G., "that is, obyvatels without any positive redeeming features, or they are charlatans, lunatics, or knaves."

"But may there not be honest and decent people among politicians?" someone asked.

"Certainly there may be," said G., "but in this case they are not practical people, they are dreamers, and they will be used by other people as screens to cover their own obscure affairs.

"The obyvatel perhaps may not know it in a philosophical way, that is to say, he is not able to formulate it, but he knows that things 'do themselves' simply through his own practical shrewdness, therefore, in his heart, he laughs at people who think, or who want to assure him, that they signify anything, that anything depends on their decisions, that they can change or, in general, do anything. This for him is not being serious. And an understanding of what is not serious can help him to value that which is serious."
I think that Gurdjieff was talking about Organic Portals in this passage. And, as Gurdjieff points out, "I do not at all wish to say that all obyvatels are people of the objective way. Nothing of the kind. Among them are thieves, rascals, and fools; but there are others. I merely wish to say that being a good obyvatel by itself does not hinder the 'way'

As Gurdjieff points out with some humor, there are different types of obyvatel.

"To what category do politicians belong who speak contemptuously about 'obyvatel,' 'obyvatels' opinions,' 'obyvatels' interests'?" someone asked.

"They are the worst kind of obyvatels," said G., "that is, obyvatels without any positive redeeming features, or they are charlatans, lunatics, or knaves."
The second thing that sticks in my mind is the following:

"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I konw of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking." Carl Sagan
[...]
"Contrary to the fantasies of the fundamentalists, there was no deathbed conversion, no last minute refuge taken in a comforting vision of a heaven or an afterlife. For Carl, what mattered most was what was true, not merely what would make us feel better. Even at this moment [as he was dying] when anyone would be forgiven for turning away from the reality of our situation, Carl was unflinching. As we looked deeply into each other's eyes, it was with a shared conviction that our wondrous life together was ending forever." (Ann Druyan Sagan)
As an extremely intelligent and generally honest person, maybe Carl Sagan knew his own reality quite well?

I say "generally honest" because I can't erase from my mind his behavior toward Velikovsky which was cheap and reprehensible, an episode that demonstrated his complete lack of ability to "see himself" or to "think out of the box" or transfer abstract learning in a particular way.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Laura said:
Well, I’m not sure about that. I think it might depend on the “soul pool.” The individual I described above absolutely revolted against any “human” hierarchy, but clung to the religious faith like a drowning man to a straw.
"Soul pool" variation seems an important point, as it accounts for the wide spectrum of OP "types", and may explain why using isolated behaviour labels to "pin them down" might be a wild goose chase. Trying to understand the OP exclusively in terms of psychology might be like trying to understand the obyvatel in terms of "conditional seriousness". To get a clear picture one would have to get an idea of the full spectrum of soul-pool possibilities, and compare those with the case of individuals with soul potential but not as yet having crystalized soul presence.

The two might be indistinguishable in terms of observable behaviors, and in the cases of both the OP spectrum and the evolving individuality spectrum the variation of "types" may form a literal zoo of possibilities too extensive to easily and realistically catalogue.

Maybe a less confusing approach might be to place more focus on the Adamic "profile" as a stand-alone presence, understanding that side of the coin first. And that understanding would necessarily not be limited to the "perfected individual" or precipitated and/or crystalized soul, but to the full spectrum of cases, including those where soul crystalization has barely begun or is still latent.

Personally, I do not believe soul crystalization occurs in a vacuum or out of a no-soul state. To me, the soul in an individual can be diffused as in a gasious state, without form and with a volume necessarily defined by the physical container, meaning that the sense of self would be more dependent directly on human biological parameters to define it in the same way a container defines the volume of a gas, and the shape of a liquid.

Individuation may then be a process of soul substance condensation into a self-defined structure that supports the body just as genetics can act as the medium of soul distillation. Understanding what it means to evolve, grow, distill and/or crystalize an individual soul is important IMO because it is that which is completely incomprehensible to an OP.

Although OP genetics may be different than Adamic ones, the point is that the default soul unprecipitated state of the potential individual is probably no different than that of the OP, with the difference that the Adamic does not have the luxury of a greater soul pool from which to draw. This soul pool effect need not be interpreted (as comments above also implied) into a literal "herd" aspect, but can imply predispositions ranging from extreme ascetisim to a clinging to some kind of greater social body.

This also reveals that growing a soul may have nothing to do with what may at first seem like obvious conceptions of "soulful" behaviour. The soul pool phenomenon (and there may also be soul pool evolution or different degrees of evolution or soul essence concentration between soul pools), might be able to account for some of the noblest aspects of human behavior.

If soul pools do evolve (and I don't see why not) there may be a point where an upper limit is reached where the soul pool is ready to split into individuality modules. OP's of such a soul pool may be indistinguishable from Adamics from the viewpoint of an as yet evolving individualized person. In other words, individual evolution may begin where the OP state ends, but a beginner individual may be much less soul-coherent than an advanced soul-pool, where the group effect amplifies soul energies.

Even so, the difference comes down to the fact that OP's are not privy to personal individuation and soul precipitation, which is most likely a far more radical process than OP group-soul supported evolution, which seems to be more adaptation-oriented even if that adaptation expresses in terms of revolutionary behaviour against the status quo environment (trying to make the environment adapt to oneself instead of the other way around, or even trying to create an independent environment).

In essence a potential individual finds him or herself with genetics that quantize the soul in one body. For those genetics to function ideally, i.e., for that individual to be truly healthy the individually quantized soul needs to be as coherent as a fully evolved soul pool, only more organically concentrated. Optimum genetic expression would go with optimum soul presence. Until that optimum soul presence is attained the whole existence of the individual is "off".

I do agree that there are some very fundamental clues in Laura's quote of Henry James. Tolstoy especially describes the state where one can ignore this need for soul precipitation, which probably has organic/genetic roots just as psychopathy does only for so long:

My state of mind was as if some wicked and stupid jest was being played upon me by someone. One can live only so long as one is intoxicated, drunk with life but when one grows sober one cannot fail to see that it is all a stupid cheat. What is truest about it is that there is nothing even funny or silly in it; it is cruel and stupid, purely and simply. But perhaps, I said to myself, there may be something I have failed to notice or to comprehend. it is not possible that this condition of despair should be natural to mankind. And I sought for an explanaton in all the branches of knowledge acquired by men.
Indeed, just as physical pain is a message that something is not right in the body, so this pain of the soul expressed as a condition of existential turmoil is a message that ignoring one's individual potential is harmful even to the body, leading to neurologically based depression, and possibly to chronic illness if left unaddressed.

This, IMO is the turmoil that the OP cannot understand. And here we do not have a comparison of the OP with the realized Adamic, but with a potential individual taking the first steps to soul precipitation, which usually begin with some kind of crisis or dissatisfaction with life as it presents itself. This is different than just feeling one has to study esoteric subjects or yoga or go to the monastary.

I believe that a defining difference here is that when an OP (of the most sincere and evolved type) moves into internal work (in whatever version) the true deepest motive does NOT entail paradox, while for the potential individual it is BASED on paradox.

This is not the paradox of the koan given by a Zen master. I believe there are many OP's who are Zen masters. Real-life Paradox is far more than an exercise. For the potential individual there may be a period when they consciously or unconsciouly ignore and/or try to bypass the soul-crystalizing needs of their genetic code. Yet the tension mounts, and if they are lucky, those same organic variables precipitate an existential crisis (acute or chronic, mild or painfully powerful) where they come face to face with the stark truth of existence as paradox.

Tolstoy's account is of the more acute variety, but it does describe the essential condition as a state of "sobriety" where one realizes life as a "stupid cheat". And it is sobriety, because self-imposed opiation from our true soul-oriented organic needs has worn off. And truly the one with individual soul potential goes through two births. In the first the genetics are in place and the soul in potential, and in the second the organic variables have been consciously activated to precipitate the soul they were made to support, so it in turn could support them. Only then are they complete and only then does life take on meaning, not because it lacked it before, but because the living subject was not yet capable of experiencing it.

Try explaining this (or the general meaning of it in one's own words), and most likely some can relate to it in some way, while others will think you are speaking some alien tongue. Those who have individualized potential IMO, if and when of course they reach a stage of deep self-honesty, understand a need to be twice-born to be whole. Maybe not intellectually or even emotionally so much. Maybe the understanding is fundamentally organic in the same way the caterpillar feels compelled at some point to spin a cocoon so it may one day emerge as a butterfly.
 

kenlee

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
EsoQuest said:
[Individuation may then be a process of soul substance condensation into a self-defined structure that supports the body just as genetics can act as the medium of soul distillation. Understanding what it means to evolve, grow, distill and/or crystalize an individual soul is important IMO because it is that which is completely incomprehensible to an OP.
Yes, the "soul substance condensation" that you mention may only be possible in a central nervous system that is compatible with such a condensation. The "soul substance" to which you refer may represent a "quantum of consciousness" or a 'unit' of high voltage potential that is available to the HUMAN totality at birth. High voltage potential cannot become actual unless there is a physical circuit that can handle such a voltage and the subsequent current generated from points of contact between the higher and lower states. Possibly it is this consciousness or "potential" that allows the human totality to seperate from its sensitive organic states and actually see themselves impartially. This consciousness makes it possible to feel the "soul pain" of another. In a state of organic sensitivity this is not possible since we are too conditioned to recognize anything apart from our own sensations and perceptions.

An OP may just accumulate sensitive experiences throughout their life, including perhaps,
even a little bit of consciousness, but, I think, it is primarily an automatic accumulation of experience. This collected experience over a lifetime may be held together by a "sensitive glue" that holds these experiences together even after deah. But due to the fact that there is no consciousness within this "sensitive mixture" (or perhaps just enough consciousness to still be aware of a dream like experience) the OP could only live in an after death dream world just as they have lived in a dream world while alive. I'm sure the same would apply to the potentially souled individual if they have made no efforts to become more conscious. The only difference is that the soul potential would just remain in a potential state and go back to the sea of potential.

It may very well be that an Organic Portal cannot separate from their sensitive states because they cannot "actualize" consciousness and "bring it down to earth"
so to speak. Only by separating from our conditioned sensitive states could we see things
in a more unconditioned or objective way. Thus the OP, I think, still lives in a dream world even after death. Possibly there is still an inherent capacity to experience, even after death, because of this "sensitive glue" which holds these experiences together, but there is no consciousness or soul potential in this sensitive mixture which could separate from it and keep these experiences from being "washed clean" in the ocean of the organic soul pool. So possibly this being "washed clean" of experience is indicative of the second death.

If there is any consciousness at all within this sensitive mixture then it may be so little that it could only vaguely witness its experiences in a subjective dream world. As it's memories get washed away so does its capacity to experience until it dissolves completely back into the pool. Possibly there can be blissful experiences or sufferings, husbands might reunite with wives, children etc. but since there was so little consciousness (or none at all) then everything that takes place is subjective and is in a dream world. But if there is no consciousness then there can be no experience of reality. Everything would be experienced in a dream world pending the second death where any small amount of accumulated consciousness might withdraw back into the sea of potential. Simultaneous with this, the 'glue' of organic sensitivity loses its coherence and structure and eventually dissolves back into the organic pool as well.
 

Nathan

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Ruth said:
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.

That in itself is quite interesting.
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.

EsoQuest said:
"Soul pool" variation seems an important point, as it accounts for the wide spectrum of OP "types", and may explain why using isolated behaviour labels to "pin them down" might be a wild goose chase. Trying to understand the OP exclusively in terms of psychology might be like trying to understand the obyvatel in terms of "conditional seriousness".
Here, we are finding difficulty in discovering a shared behavioural trait. It is like finding a common behaviour trait shared by every animal in a zoo. (I am not regarding OPs as animals here - just an analogy.)

EsoQuest said:
To get a clear picture one would have to get an idea of the full spectrum of soul-pool possibilities, and compare those with the case of individuals with soul potential but not as yet having crystalized soul presence.
I agree with EsoQuest. One thing that comes to mind for me is discovering those who truly are dissatisfied with life in all its shapes and forms, those who have a splinter in their mind. This may be one way of identifying those with soul potential. But then again, even this may take years of observation to really discover if a person's dissatisfaction with life and experience of inner turmoil is actually indicative of soul potential. I'm sure we have all been easily fooled by those who appear to experience this, only to discover years later that we were merely "ascribing soul-like qualities" that simply did not exist.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Ruth said:
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. Like individual souls, OP soul pools are at different stage of evolution, "measured" by the strength of the soul presence of the particular pool. In addition, there are different types of soul pool expression. Some soul pools are comprised of individuals whose definition of the "herd" is themselves and nobody else. You may have a group of ascetics who have never met, all of them alone, but who all belong to the same soul pool.

You can have different people who are examples of piety, yet belonging to different religions, all belonging to the same soul pool. You can also have soul pools at odds with each other, just as you can have people with individual potential at odds with each other. When individuals reach a state of enhanced soul crystallization IMO they will feel that soul kinship and be in agreement with the spirit of the letter, so to speak, if not with its form.

Yet, individuals who have not reached this stage may all be coming from completely different viewpoints and even be combative toward each other. You may know that a human embryo goes through stages where at first it has a fish morphology, then an amphibious one, then reptilian, then mammilian and finally human.

In individual my go through stages like this, and so may a soul pool. An individual at the "fish" stage may then be virtually indistinguishable from an OP at that level, and an OP at approaching the "human" level may seem far more in advance of an OP at the "amphibian" level (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Yet, regardless of evolution all OP's are Organic Portals, meaning they are more vulnerable to STS infiltration than Adamics. The reason, IMO is that the Adamic soul pool is a soul pool of one. For STS to access it they have to go through the genetic field, which is like a barrier. Conversly, for STS to access the Adamic body they have to confront the Adamic soul potential, unprecipitated or not. The two are intertwined (and Adamics endure much stress before their second birth because when soul is out of phase with body, they feel it acutely and painfully).

The OP soul, on the other hand, is delocalized and not focused on the genetics of one person in such an attached manner. Thus, STS can "slide" between body and soul, as it were. What protects the Adamic is soul bio-unity. Before the soul crystallizes, however, 4D STS can stress that unity as if trying to tear the soul away. This may even succeed in lower "evolved" cases turning the potential individual into a psychopath, but more than likely would induce psychosis as well because of the damage done. One may consider that abductions of Adamics may be (in terms of 4D STS variables) experiments on how to possess them without damaging the person too much.

Because the body/soul connection is less coherent with OP's there may be space in between where the STS influence can slide. Yet, even in that case full possession demands STS making space for itself between the organic variables and the soul state and that can also induce soul-tearing leading to psychopathy.

Essentially because the Adamic has a body tailor designed to support and express one soul the link is more specific, while with an OP soul-pool it is not so specific. This, however, is difficult to associate with particular patterns of behaviour. It is easy to be misled when "photographing" individuals at one stage of evolution and based on how they act at that stage, decide if they are or are not OP's.

It might be useful to ask: if OP's are 50%, how many of these are evolved into healthy "obyvatels" and how many into "lower" obyvatels, and how many are in-between? The same goes for Adamics. How many are crystallized (I would guess this percentage comes close to the 6% of the OP psychopath, if bell-curve symmetry holds), how many are moving toward second birth, and how many are still asleep and indistinguishable from the OP half (in all its phases)?

IMO the reason one needs to observe for a long time is because differences between Adamics and OP's lie in how evolutionary transitions take place, and that is where stress between an evolving Adamic and even the healthiest OP come up, because the latter cannot relate to those transitions on Adamic terms.
 
Top Bottom