Organic Portals: The Other Race

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
anart said:
The monk was acting in an STO manner, in a way, and the other monk could not see past the 'breaking of the rules' to understand what actually occurred.
That was pretty much it. It seemed that Russ saw Laura as breaking some kind of 'etiquette rule' rather than seeing what was she was trying to offer as an example and lesson.

Joe
 

Ruth

The Living Force
Russ said:
I thought it was necessary to bring to light the reasons why Ruth was being "focussed on". I thought it was possible, or likely, that this is how Ruth is/was feeling, and that an explanation would help Ruth to see what was happening. The reason why I asked the question, rather than stating what I thought was happening, was to allow Ruth to see the answer to a question that she was possibly asking, but not posting.
I felt that people were not focusing on what I said, but rather the person who had said it, that being me. And that they didn't like disagreement under any circumstances and would do anything to make 'me' the issue, rather than some of the ideas under discussion. I also don't feel that this is a new thing.

It just got to the stage where my big red buttons were being pushed. So, I have removed all my posts that simply were not contributing and you can all go back to discussing only things that you agree with, with people who agree with you. I'm sure you'll all find that much more interesting. Looks like it might save a bit of space too.

You might try getting back to the topic as well, rather than making me the topic. And yeah I can see the funny side of it. You know, I don't think I was asking for any 'lessons', but I'm sure there's one in there for me anyway. Perhaps I should just pay more attention to what other people are asking for.
 

Nathan

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
EsoQuest said:
... while you give pretty level-headed comments on other topics, this particular one evokes your ire at times. And I noticed that the more the discussion tends to affirm the complexity of the OP vs. non-OP issue, the more defensive you become. I felt this early on in the discussion, but withheld comment then because I did not want to be jumping to hasty conclusions based on too little input.
I noticed this too, but until you pointed this out, I was confused as to why this topic was the exception and withheld comment for the same reasons. :P

Ruth said:
I felt that people were not focusing on what I said, but rather the person who had said it, that being me.
Ruth, why do you feel that other forum members are focusing on you as a person? This is not personal and there is no need to make it so.

For example, as a writer, I have had to learn very quickly not to become too attached to my work. Very often writers take criticism personally, as if it is a blow to them and not what they have written. The fact is, no one has time for writers who are precious with their work and scared of what people might think, scared that they might be judged. During my studies, my writing was taken to pieces by at least 30 other students on a weekly basis. I had to learn not to take constructive criticism personally. The reason I bring this example up is because I, like many others, had to realise that they weren't focusing on me personally, they were giving feedback to help me. And the same applies here. No one is focusing on you, they are helping.

Ruth said:
And that they didn't like disagreement under any circumstances and would do anything to make 'me' the issue, rather than some of the ideas under discussion. I also don't feel that this is a new thing.
I don't see any evidence of making you the issue in this discussion or in any other discussions.

Ruth said:
It just got to the stage where my big red buttons were being pushed. So, I have removed all my posts that simply were not contributing and you can all go back to discussing only things that you agree with, with people who agree with you. I'm sure you'll all find that much more interesting. Looks like it might save a bit of space too.
Why have you removed these posts? Simply because they were not contributing or you didn't get an idea or concept? In previous discussions, I have not completely understood what was being discussed, which led to me not entirely getting it, and it was you in fact who brought me up to speed. I never felt compelled to remove my posts. Sure, I was a bit embarrassed at not "getting it", but so what? Everyone makes mistakes. And it provides a valuable opportunity for others to learn from them - just as it would if you didn't delete the posts you felt "were not contributing".

Ruth said:
You might try getting back to the topic as well, rather than making me the topic. And yeah I can see the funny side of it. You know, I don't think I was asking for any 'lessons', but I'm sure there's one in there for me anyway. Perhaps I should just pay more attention to what other people are asking for.
No one ever made you the topic. This smacks of self-pity.
 
R

Richard

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

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

This is particularly relevant since the other element I have identified: being unable to learn even after years of attempts on the part of others to assist, being unable to grasp an abstract principle and transfer the learning, is also becoming painfully apparent.
The ABSTRACT concept thing that Ruth seems totally unable to understand is not anything new. Many of those of us who have been members of discussion groups at Yahoo in which Ruth has participated for years have tried time after time in every way we could imagine to try to help Ruth get some of these types of concepts. To little (actually NO) avail!

The discussions would reach a 'certain point' and Ruth would invariably begin to distort what was said, evade direct answers, claim what she 'said' was not what she 'meant' and simply continue to 'misunderstand' what others meant by what they were saying. She insisted that she had a right to disagree but what was often inconguous was that she would quite often disagree with something she had previous stated weeks, or even sometimes, days before.

She often exhibited 'OP-like' behaviour but was always totally unwilling to consider the idea that the behaviour of everyone was essentially nothing but the reactions of the 'machine' as Gurdjieff and Mouravieff have described how these occur in 'man'. She considered them to be little more than "Old Men" whose ideas and concepts are no more relevant and correct (in fact, less so) than whatever it was she has decided . These are some of the abstract concepts she not only does not appear to understand but will just not accept as valid in any way.

If someone has been studying the Cassiopaean materials for some time most of us would expect that they would have the understanding that the world, and indeed all of reality, is the way it is because this is what is needed for our lessons and for balance in the universe. So, if this is so why would Ruth say the following in the topic headed "Sex" ?
Ruth said:
If I ever get a chance, I'll 'do unto' Lizzie what the Bene Gesserit did to Baron Harkonnen. But perhaps they will do it to themselves? Hope so. I enjoyed the Dune books a lot. I really enjoy those stories.
This is NOT the way I feel! How can a 'souled' person who supposedly has a conscience and empathy feel this way? The C's mentioned
Session July 13 said:
(A) How can I know if I have a soul?
A: Do you ever hurt for another?
Q: (V) I think they are talking about empathy. These soulless humans
simply don't care what happens to another person. If another person is in
pain or misery, they don't know how to care.
A: The only pain they experience is "withdrawal" of "food" or
comfort, or what they want. They are also masters of twisting perception of others so
as to seem to be empathetic. But, in general, such actions are simply to retain
control.
I have not said what I have here as some sort of condemnation of Ruth but because there may be many who do not have any idea that we have gone through these issues with her many times before with similar outcomes.

I do not feel anyone here is 'against' Ruth and I am most certainly not. It is my hope that this information will be of assistance to those who are working to understand the issues of OPs and the dialogue which has transpired as it has. Only by knowing the history of our past discussions, and their lack of results in communicating with her in a meaningful way about what is certainly true about the 'mechanical' nature of man in his normal state and why it is essentially the equivalent behavioural pattern of the OP, can those participating here have an understanding of her statements and actions.

I also feel that 'spotting the OP' or labeling people in any way is counterproductive and rather 'inhuman'. Notice that I said "people" in the previous sentence. All of us here on this Earth are "people" and should be treated and thought of as such I think.

Isn't it really strange that we can love our dogs, cats and other pets who are an order of magnitude 'below' our level of consciousness and yet some of us feel an urge to place other people in some sort of inferior position in our societies?

Wasn't that the downfall of the Atlanteans?
 

kenlee

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
If you look at the world today, as well as all throughout history, can we explain why there is such mind boggling barbarity? What laws and forces make this possible? Why is it that those who seek to pierce the true nature of reality, which includes the two questions that I just asked above get so attacked, defamed and hated when they try figure it out? What are the deceptive forces involved that try to keep us from understanding certain things? What are the laws under which these forces manifest? Through whom do such forces mostly manifest, and what are the dynamics that makes this possible? I think the idea of the Organic Portal, within the larger context of the hyperdimensional reality, explains very much with respect to all this. However, as above so below. We might see this same dynamic playing within our own lives as well. This all leads to the study of higher centers, of esoteric work (I mean real esoteric work, the real work of the alchemists, and not the work of the feel good "self transformers" as you might find with the self help gurus). By understanding the nature of the Organic Portal and the nature of the soul we might get a good "profile" of those in our own lives who may fit this profile.

I think its essential that we know why we accept or do not accept certain ideas.
Why might we be so interested in an idea? Are we interested because it serves us for some reason? Even with the idea of the Organic Portal there are those whose belief systems will be threatened by this idea, or conversely, they might accept it only because they might use it as an excuse to justify themselves to feel superior to another.

There is a part of us that chooses to accept or to not accept certain ideas. But the question that must be asked is which part of us, what is it within us, that accepts or rejects ideas? Is there simply some egotistical desire in us that is making this choice for us and are we using our intellectual powers only to justify this desire in us?

In the Gurdjieff work there is mentioned a part of us that can only see the part and not the whole.

URI http://www.geocities.com/tokyo/1236/formatory9.html

"The Formatory Apparatus is another name for the mechanical part of the intellectual centre. It is given a special name because it plays such a large role in our lives. For example, it will attempt to answer when a question is addressed to the whole of us.

"It uses words; its medium is words.. Its function is to record data and take care of such repetitive automatic tasks as: simple addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and so on; serve as a databank for data such as address, telephone number, pin number, general knowledge, common sayings such as `Hello, how are you', individual words, and so on. It collects ready-made opinions. It does not think; it can only recite."

So possibly it is this part of you us that often does the accepting and rejecting of certain very complex concepts such as the OP, when this idea really needs to be addressed by the whole of us and not just a part of us?
 

Alada

The Living Force
Hi All, great thread.

A tricky subject to navigate though and rightly so I think, might seem like going round in circles or endlessly representing the same ideas to try and communicate an idea sometimes but this is important I think and worth having patience with the process.

Think of the mistakes that could be made in rushing to conclusions with this subject. Forming opinions is one thing, allowing these to become too precious, to be set in stone, or even to define one's interactions with others, before said opinions have been tested and exposed to the viewpoint of others could be problematic at best, deeply destructive at worst in my opinion. Testing an idea is a valuable part of discussion where one is aiming to discover objective truth, if the idea does not seem to fit we can work on it, create another better idea!

As we are, it seems that through our general 'make up', characteristics, habits and ides of 'this and that' which we pick up along the way, we all develop 'reading errors' where what we think is so may not in fact be the case, the view often being coloured by our very nature. If we want to know the truth of a thing then I think it is important to remember this idea, lest we get hold of the wrong end of the stick and with the OP "stick" that possibility should not be taken lightly, or so I think.

Ruth said:
I felt that people were not focusing on what I said, but rather the person who had said it, that being me. And that they didn't like disagreement under any circumstances and would do anything to make 'me' the issue, rather than some of the ideas under discussion. I also don't feel that this is a new thing.
The way I picture a discussion reaching a common view is a bit like an orchestra tuning up. At first there might be a racket of sorts, people displaying their bestist flourishes, complicated scales that have been learnt by heart, or just 'blowing out the tubes', but soon it settles to a tuned note that everyone can agree upon and play can commence.

The aim of the orchestra in this case is to discover and play "new chords". For this to work does not mean that everybody has to "agree" with each other and play the same note, different notes are needed to make the chord, the players experiment to find what is harmonic with the aim and what is discordant. So when a chord is struck and some note or other seems out of place, to many ears it will be very noticeable and the other players might seek to identify the source.

Soon they find the source, a "sharp" note from a violin that does not fit the particular chord being played. "But I am playing the right note, it fits!" protests the violinist. Here they must find if the player is in fact tone deaf or perhaps his "instrument" (hint, hint) might benefit from a little "tuning"?

Ruth said:
It just got to the stage where my big red buttons were being pushed. So, I have removed all my posts that simply were not contributing and you can all go back to discussing only things that you agree with, with people who agree with you. I'm sure you'll all find that much more interesting. Looks like it might save a bit of space too.
"Big red buttons being pushed" might suggest a reading error. If the violinist finds that his fiddle is faulty or one of the strings is out of tune, would he take this so personally, when the subject is not "me", the subject is the violin? If he does indeed take it so, hide the instrument back in its case and storm off (maybe to find a more 'Avant Garde' orchestra where discord is 'all the rage', who knows), you might imagine that some of the other players might be left scratching their heads at this! A great way to avoid being exposed to any discussion of the instrument though, maybe it is a cherished Stradivarias and so already above question?

Yet this is what seems to happen time and again. If Ruth gets onto dodgy ground where ideas are to be exposed to the views of others, where questions are asked, verifications sought, Ruth it seems would rather hide away the 'Strad' and divert attention onto the subject of music in general, on being allowed to play ones own tune, on not being 'manipulated' by the conductor or leaders of the orchestra - who in Ruth's conception may then be viewed as STS manipulators, psychopaths, or OPs themselves: ...an orchestra is just another type of herd after all you know... lol. Always manipulating, pointing out this or that 'note' rather than getting on with the business of playing. Always quoting Mozart - which is SO irritating... he's dead get over it! Jeeze seems some people just want to turn everybody into musicians, so they can all be just like them! (Of course that's just the impression I get, I can be wrong).

Ruth said:
You might try getting back to the topic as well, rather than making me the topic. And yeah I can see the funny side of it. You know, I don't think I was asking for any 'lessons', but I'm sure there's one in there for me anyway. Perhaps I should just pay more attention to what other people are asking for.
"Me" is not the topic, it is "we". We all have reading errors, we all have buttons, themes that are dicussed by Laura at great length on the site, by being here are we not asking to know more about these ideas?
 

Ruth

The Living Force
Graham said:
"Me" is not the topic, it is "we". We all have reading errors, we all have buttons, themes that are dicussed by Laura at great length on the site, by being here are we not asking to know more about these ideas?

Graham.
The topic is supposed to be on Organic Portals, not 'me' or 'we' or errors in reading or agreement/disagreement or going around in circles or instructions on 'lessons' that other people insist other people should learn and be able to re-gurdieffate at a moments notice because this person is supposed to be so 'special'.

How could I get something so wrong....!

Maybe no-ones interested in organic portals? Maybe that is something to think about. An even more frightening idea, perhaps, is that some people may think that people have no RIGHT to think about anything. Unless its with their approval first.
 

anart

The Living Force
Ruth, I gotta tell ya that this post of yours leaves me wondering what thread you're reading, because you sure as heck 'ain't getting this one'. What say we all stop wasting energy and time trying to convince you that this is not 'about you' - what say, after all is said and done, that it being 'about you' might actually ring true? You "didn't get something so wrong", you simply aren't seeing that 'something' from the point of view of an observer.
 
G

Guest

Guest
IMO opinion this thread is moving wonderfully (although a bit roughly as of late). It has not veered one iota from the topic. The thread is not about Ruth, but it seems that Ruth has become about the thread. In other words Ruth has moved herself in the position of becoming an example of many things that are being discussed.

The concept of OP's was already described by the C's, and Mouravieff already described it in different words with his distinction between Adamics and non-Adamics. When the thread began, Laura pointed out that the topic would benefit from a deeper exploration and discussion. It was obvious that all of the material available on the OP theme was not enough to close the case, as it were. In the course of the ensuing discussion it became clear that we were and are dealing with something very complex that should not be taken lightly nor defined simply.

Because we are dealing with an understanding of differences within humanity, jumping to conclusions can lead to unwarranted predjudice. In sincere attempts to avoid predjudice, many angles were apporached and the scope of the topic expanded and deepened. As this deepening and complexification of the topic was reaching a crescendo, Ruth began reacting. The reaction seemed to be an expression of cognitive dissonance with the direction of the discussion, the abstract nature of the OP/ensouled issue, and in particular the observation that making OP/ensouled distinctions cannot be a simple and "obvious" matter.

Ruth herself agreed she was experiencing cognitive dissonance: "my BIG RED BUTTONS are being pushed". This is not quite the same as saying: "I feel I am being attacked", although that was also implied. Having your buttons pushed to me means that a person is forced to face something they do not want to face. Could Ruth be presenting OP's in her simplified version so she can guarantee herself a place on the "good guys" side of the line?

For me the greatest practical application of this discussion is being aware that there are people who do not grok with certain abstract issues of the human condition, and sparing oneself and those people the discomfort and waste of time of "kicking a dead horse".

The point of understanding that there are OP's is not to promote segregation, but to accomodate onself to the natures of certain people (when one finds oneself dealing with them as a matter of course), and to respect that nature. OP's may not be able to understand what it is like to go through the often turbulent process of individuation, but those who are of indiviualized potential CAN understand the OP condition enough at least to respect it and act accordingly.

So it is to avoid predjudice and not promote it that is the goal of trying to understand the OP/"ensouled" distinction. Some have expressed the concern, nevertheless, that the whole distinction can be predjudicial. The concern is valid considering how easy humanity falls into predjudice when trying to understand differences between people and groups. Yet most of the contributors to this thread are sincere, and I stand by my opinion that this discussion resolves potential predjudice (which is why I believe it began in the first place), and does not fall into it (purposefully or inadvertently).

At the other end of the spectrum is Ruth, who even though she tried to deny it, approaches the OP/"ensouled" distinction with a certain amount of pre-judgment. When this is addressed, her "big red buttons" are pushed. Due to the complexity of the issue, labelling anyone OP or non-OP is a path that should be trodden carefully, to say the least, even if one cannot help but form a personal opinion (and we have discussed how easy it is for that opinion to toggle back and forth).

Yet, the fact remains that Ruth is exhibiting an OP-like dissonance response in the face of the abstract complexity of an issue appoached in terms that are compatible with individualized-like ways of thought. Although, as I mentioned, it's often a rough ride, the fact remains that this whole thread is also a valuable lesson, and I for one am glad Ruth has participated in this discussion. For what its worth, I wish people would not delete their messages (unless they are offensive) because such a forum often has a synchronistic nature and everything posted has a place in the whole.
 

Alada

The Living Force
Ruth said:
The topic is supposed to be on Organic Portals, not 'me' or 'we' or errors in reading or agreement/disagreement or going around in circles or instructions on 'lessons' that other people insist other people should learn and be able to re-gurdieffate at a moments notice because this person is supposed to be so 'special'.

How could I get something so wrong....!
Hi Ruth,

Maybe due to not incorporating the idea that both groups exhibit OP-like behaviour while there is a limited knowledge of how the three lower centres work and the effects they produce? We are all OP-like until we learn how not to be, or so the available source material suggests.

Both groups have the same three lower centres, the material being discussed here suggests that for non-OPs a lack of awareness of these centres limits understanding and restricts thoughts/emotions/actions to the 'default' set of manipulated 'choices' provided by the matrix reality. If the three lower centres are running the show, what is the difference then between OP or not OP, that is the question.

The material further suggests that the non-OP group has been tinkered with by 4d STS to inhibit the seating of the higher centres. Seating of the higher centres is aided by awareness, knowledge protects, to "ignore" or "shut out" the other subjects that link into this one, or to keep them in separate boxes is to place a limitation on deeper understanding of the OP subject. Which is why, to my mind, the subject has not drifted, the themes are necessarily connected it would seem.

To detach the subjects from each other might in effect produce a lop sided equation where there is no empathy for the other due to limited understanding of the problems faced by both groups. This might produce initial actions inspired by theory alone with no understanding and then produce reactions in others based on mechanics alone with not even any theory, in which case the little black shirt would again be this seasons "must have", no?
 

knowledge_of_self

The Living Force
Ruth said:
It just got to the stage where my big red buttons were being pushed. So, I have removed all my posts that simply were not contributing and you can all go back to discussing only things that you agree with, with people who agree with you. I'm sure you'll all find that much more interesting. Looks like it might save a bit of space too.
Hello:

I started reading this thread recently, in the past a few days and I started to see how some posts are missing, and that it has become rather difficult to navigate through, as someone else stated earlier. I really don’t think erasing your posts was the right thing to do, whether you believed it was at that moment or not. What you have posted throughout this thread contributes to making it a whole. And this is in my opinion about any thread that contains erased posts, meaning no one should erase their posts, because it might make sense to someone else and that person may make some connections in one way or another. By erasing your posts you have just made the thread more difficult to go through and seem ‘noisy’. Whether you meant to do that consciously or unconsciously I don’t know.

Please have some external consideration for members of the group who read some of the threads a little later than the original start date the next time some of your “big red buttons” trigger you to erase your posts.

Regards,
Nina
 

Cyre2067

The Living Force
Kinda avoided this thread for awhile, but i just remembered something that seems appropriate. I'm into video games, and in big online ones (where universes are created for players to inhabit) there are computer controlled non-playing characters or NPCs. The PC's or Playing Characters are controlled by people who log in and play the game. A while back i made this parallel to our universe, labelling people PCs or NPCs depending on their level of involvment in their reality. Those who simply go with the flow are NPCs, those that express an inherit quality of individuality and concious thought are PCs.

When i heard about OPs they seemed a little to complex of an issue to burn it down to this level, but i when i was thinking about how to discern OPs from souled i remembered this observation i made in high school. Just my 2 cents.
 

Nathan

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
I am not sure whether this idea has already been explored or not, but perhaps we could look at the higher centres as a means of learning more about the differences between OPs and potentially souled individuals?

Session 13 July 2002
In an individual of the organic variety, the so-called higher chakras are "produced in effect" by stealing that energy from souled beings. This is what gives them the ability to emulate souled beings. The souled being is, in effect, perceiving a mirror of their own soul when they ascribe "soul qualities" to such beings.
The C's describe the centres - or chakras - as follows:

"An energy field that merges density one, two, three, or four with five."
Lower moving center - basal chakra
Lower emotional - sexual chakra
Lower intellectual - throat chakra
Higher emotional - heart chakra
Higher intellectual - crown chakra
[Seer - third eye chakra]
By the way, there are only six chakras above. Am I missing one?

Anyway, since OPs are yet to develop higher centres, which appears to be alluded to years before the topic of Organic Portals arose ...

Session 950603
Q: (T) Do different people have different numbers of chakras?
A: Yes.
I really don't know much about the higher intellectual or emotional centres so I wouldn't know where to begin, but perhaps if we can identify what is observable of the higher centres (higher intellectual, higher emotional, seer centres), it could help us with our observations of OPs. Has anyone tried this before? Is there a way we can observe evidence of higher centres at all? Or would we simply be fooled by the centres "produced in effect"?

Just a thought! :P
 

Ryan

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Ruth said:
An even more frightening idea, perhaps, is that some people may think that people have no RIGHT to think about anything. Unless its with their approval first.
Yes, that is a frightening idea. And it's pretty apparent from the events around us at this point in time that the Pathocracy wishes to implement it. So maybe it's a good idea to consider who it is that our actions ultimately benefit?
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Nathan said:
"An energy field that merges density one, two, three, or four with five."
Lower moving center - basal chakra
Lower emotional - sexual chakra
Lower intellectual - throat chakra
Higher emotional - heart chakra
Higher intellectual - crown chakra
[Seer - third eye chakra]
By the way, there are only six chakras above. Am I missing one?
The sex center of the solar plexus, not to be confused with the lower emotional/"sexual"/2nd/orange-ray chakra.

Also, Nathan, in the diagram you made of STS/STO, perhaps you should move the 3D STO candidates more to the middle of the diagram. According to Ra, graduation occures only when one becomes 51% STO. Also, should there be a distinction between characteropaths who are STS in nature (or destiny) and those who are STO in nature? Or is that even a worthwhile distinction?
 
Top Bottom