Passion and Bats

[ri]

And maybe you put words into anart's mouth in your initial post, but I dont think you needed to. anart was not interested in interpreting the dream but in taking moral high ground and telling me what is black and what is white accordingly. I stick by what i have said regarding a "conditioned morality". Whose morality? That imposed upon anart throughout her life by parents, peers, society etc? IN other words what you guys call the matrix?

Actually, the offense taken by my question says much, much more about you than it does about me.

I asked the question because your phrasing indicated that you were behaving in a predatorial manner. There is no moral implication, just a motivational implication on your part.

It is quite telling, however, that you cannot 'let it go' and that you do not See nor understand that everything you are reading into my statement is wholly created in your own mind - thus a reflection of your own programming.

Sleepyvinny wasn't putting words in my mouth, nor were any of the other forum members - other than you. The other forum members simply understand why I brought it up and you do not.

That's ok - that can be easily remedied with some self-reflection and learning on your part, but whether you choose to do that or not is yet to be seen. I would like to suggest that you carefully read the forum rules, however, since you are bordering on rude and aggressive behavior in your responses to and about me, and there is really no need for that at all.

Anart, im going to let go of this soon as poss. JUst one thing. Can you tell me publicly that everything I said about you is wrong?

Ri

 

[ri]

Did s/he really make no judgment with his/her response? S/he was certainly not here to help interpret my dream.

I think she was. She is trying to understand and analyze you based on your words which expressed your predisposition to certain aspects of life. Understanding you and your nature goes a long way to better understand what your dream can mean - since after all, it is your dream.

Surrendering to base physical desires. Agreed. I have yet to meet a woman where indulging in sex does not mean compromising my progress to some degree.

Progress towards what?

I guess i am coming round to the idea that a relationship with nature rather than women is my best course until/ if i ever meet 'Laura's Ark'.

But women are nature too, so are men, so is everything. And there are different kinds of relationships.

INterestingly, she also cannot stand the smell of garlic on others around her, which I find quite amusing.

I'm not a big fan of garlic-breath either! :P

"what is she doing when you DON'T PAY ATTENTION to her?" I assume you mean in dream time. What sticks out in the dream is that she was fully clothed even during the most intimate foreplay you can imagine - a detail i shouldve included to begin with.

I got the impression that this was referring to real life as well. But in terms of clothes, I can think of that as a barrier either on your part or on hers. So sexually there isn't a barrier perhaps, but on another level there could be. That barrier could be emotional, or it could even represent free will. The C's described "reliance" or "addiction" as self-imposed abridging of free will. Perhaps indulging in base physical desires is an example of that too, including any mechanical action?

Yes excuse me. Nature does embrace rather a lot doesnt it; perhaps more than we care to imagine I meant a love of flora and fauna :)

And yes. The barrier connection with clothes and the abridging of free will is one i had not thought of. Maybe an emotional barrier to involvement is more llikely. Thanks.


Ri

 

[anart]

Anart, im going to let go of this soon as poss. JUst one thing. Can you tell me publicly that everything I said about you is wrong?

Ri

What an odd and vaguely manipulative request - what could be the reason for such a thing, I wonder?

anart's comment I have completely dismissed. It's based upon a conditioned morality and not on a consciuous awareness of what IS. I have only been reading Lauras material for 2-3 weeks and can only say that this is what I think people here call STS behaviour?

Let's see, you said the above about me - it is wrong. My question to you was not based upon morality of any kind.

And maybe you put words into anart's mouth in your initial post, but I dont think you needed to. anart was not interested in interpreting the dream but in taking moral high ground and telling me what is black and what is white accordingly. I stick by what i have said regarding a "conditioned morality". Whose morality? That imposed upon anart throughout her life by parents, peers, society etc? IN other words what you guys call the matrix?

Everything you've written here is 'wrong' as well - I did have an initial interest in the dream - until you revealed yourself a bit more. There is no moral issue here at all and I was not telling you anything about black and white - all of that nonsense was a creation of your own mind and had nothing to do with me. We don't deal with 'morality' here - have you read any Gurdjieff at all?

Rude? Do you want me to wear that mask that pretends all is well, and numbs us all back to sleep?
Did s/he really make no judgment with his/her response? S/he was certainly not here to help interpret my dream.

I made no judgment - you did that just fine yourself with your internal machinations. You have no idea what I was 'here to help' you or anyone else to do. By the way, your 'wear a mask and pretend all is well' comment could 'possibly' apply here IF you had not wholly and incorrectly created my motivations and intent in your own mind - they are fantasy - they are sleep and they are dreaming - you are wrong - is that 'public' enough for you?

That about sums up everything you've said 'about me' so far - and for someone who clearly has no earthly idea who I am or what my purpose is here, your self-importance is astounding.

 

[ri]

Anart, im going to let go of this soon as poss. JUst one thing. Can you tell me publicly that everything I said about you is wrong?

Ri

What an odd and vaguely manipulative request - what could be the reason for such a thing, I wonder?

anart's comment I have completely dismissed. It's based upon a conditioned morality and not on a consciuous awareness of what IS. I have only been reading Lauras material for 2-3 weeks and can only say that this is what I think people here call STS behaviour?

Let's see, you said the above about me - it is wrong. My question to you was not based upon morality of any kind.

And maybe you put words into anart's mouth in your initial post, but I dont think you needed to. anart was not interested in interpreting the dream but in taking moral high ground and telling me what is black and what is white accordingly. I stick by what i have said regarding a "conditioned morality". Whose morality? That imposed upon anart throughout her life by parents, peers, society etc? IN other words what you guys call the matrix?

Everything you've written here is 'wrong' as well - I did have an initial interest in the dream - until you revealed yourself a bit more. There is no moral issue here at all and I was not telling you anything about black and white - all of that nonsense was a creation of your own mind and had nothing to do with me. We don't deal with 'morality' here - have you read any Gurdjieff at all?

Rude? Do you want me to wear that mask that pretends all is well, and numbs us all back to sleep?
Did s/he really make no judgment with his/her response? S/he was certainly not here to help interpret my dream.

I made no judgment - you did that just fine yourself with your internal machinations. You have no idea what I was 'here to help' you or anyone else to do. By the way, your 'wear a mask and pretend all is well' comment could 'possibly' apply here IF you had not wholly and incorrectly created my motivations and intent in your own mind - they are fantasy - they are sleep and they are dreaming - you are wrong - is that 'public' enough for you?

That about sums up everything you've said 'about me' so far - and for someone who clearly has no earthly idea who I am or what my purpose is here, your self-importance is astounding.

Who is more concerned with "self-importance" importance here I wonder?

Signing out

Ri

 

[Art]

Osho did very well!

ah? Osho? You owe the guy something? Or where this comes from? Not that I mind, i just dont understand what this refers to. I dont understand the Osho conection you just made here. What were you trying to say?
Batman did great too, I think.

Alas, I had already concsiously decided not to yield to her seduction. I was interested in other people's interpretations of the dream.

Why were you interested on other people's interpretation of the dream, if you had already solved it? Dont you think that was redundant.
Confusing, even? No?
Or maybe you were not sure about your conscious decision?
You had already decided not to yield to her seduction (except if it would had fit your own interests, that was already clear)... but a few lines before your triumphant lines, you had said:

a brief encounter is partly what I wanted from her.

Alas! I dont think you have a conscious awareness of what IS! I can see it also on the malabarisms you are trying to perform with that "conditioned morality" idea, which is actually yours, and this is what you disliked on anart's coments.
Maybe you should stop reading that Osho so much. It seems to come forward through you, more than your own self does. But this is just a suggestion. You can of course become whatever you like.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Well, ri, what evidence do you have for your assertions? Because there is plenty of evidence for your self impotance, but I see none for Anart's:

If this woman has a partner in real life, why do you put yet at the end of this sentence?

anart's comment I have completely dismissed. It's based upon a conditioned morality and not on a consciuous awareness of what IS.

Anart said nothing about morality. You assume that her question was coming from a conditioned morality, and made your decision entirely based on that assumption. This is self-important. You did not ask Anart why she is asking this, you did not consider the possibility that your assumption is wrong, that she has a different reason for asking that question. There is conditioned morality and then there is simply caring about something other than yourself. Having sex with someone who has a partner can destroy their relationship, could bring a lot of pain to her and her partner, all because you wanted sex with her and you did not have any concern for anything or anyone else other than your own urges. This is not about "conditioned morality" at all, it's about whether you are a manipulator and a predator, potentially a psychopath, which are objective concepts and not just subjective judgments based on "conditioned morality".

You are being very defensive to such a question, what's the problem with answering it? And why not explain exactly which conditioned morality you see in this question?

 

[vinny]

ri, you are completely projecting here. you are reading into anart's posts, things that just aren't there!

you also seem to be unconsciously exhibiting a significant amount of 'moral indignation' at what you have projected. what's that all about? well, most likely, it is the ego-defense mechanism. Fairly normal, but not very helpful.

Perhaps a bit of self-reflection will help you find what's going on? projecting these issues onto others certainly won't.

 

[j0da]

Signing out

Leaving so soon? Why is that? :D

 

[Laura]

I was interested in other people's interpretations of the dream.

That is obviously NOT what "ri" was here for. The dream itself was not only quite simple and mundane, it was als easy to interpret. It strikes me that it was supposed to be a platform for "ri" to pontificate on some subject, only that plan was foiled immediately when a simple question was asked by anart who was seeking clarification of the psychological issues.

That "ri" became highly incensed by this "interruption" is a big clue that he did have a "plan," or rather a "planned manipulation."

I notice that he has apparently completely misunderstood what "conventional morality" is vs. True Conscience, and has no real concept of STS and STO.

The whole little drama reminded me of the paranoid characteropath as described by Lobaczewski:

It is characteristic of paranoid behavior for people to be capable of relatively correct reasoning and discussion as long as the conversation involves minor differences of opinion. This stops abruptly when the partner’s arguments begin to undermine their overvalued ideas, crush their long-held stereotypes of reasoning, or force them to accept a conclusion they had subconsciously rejected before. Such a stimulus unleashes upon the partner a torrent of pseudo-logical, largely paramoralistic, often insulting utterances which always contain some degree of suggestion.

Utterances like these inspire aversion among cultivated and logical people, but they enslave less critical minds, e.g. people with other kinds of psychological deficiencies...

...paranoid individuals become aware of their enslaving influence through experience and attempt to take advantage thereof in a pathologically egotistic manner.

We know today that the psychological mechanism of paranoid phenomena is twofold: one is caused by damage to the brain tissue, the other is functional or behavioral. Within the above-mentioned process of rehabilitation, any brain-tissue lesion causes a certain degree of loosening of accurate thinking and, as a consequence, of the personality structure. Most typical are those cases caused by an aggression in the diencephalon by various pathological factors, resulting in its permanently decreased tonal ability, and similarly of the tonus of inhibition in the brain cortex. Particularly during sleepless nights, runaway thoughts give rise to a paranoid changed view of human reality, as well as to ideas which can be either gently naive or violently revolutionary. Let us call this kind paranoid characteropathy.

In persons free of brain-tissue lesions, such phenomena most frequently occur as a result of being reared by people with paranoid characteropathia, along with the psychological terror of their childhood. Such psychological material is then assimilated creating the rigid stereotypes of abnormal experiencing. This makes it difficult for thought and world-view to develop normally, and the terror-blocked contents become transformed into permanent, functional, congestive centers.

Ivan Pavlov comprehended all kinds of paranoid states in a manner similar to this functional model without being aware of this basic and primary cause. He nevertheless provided a vivid description of paranoid characters and the above-mentioned ease with which paranoid individuals suddenly tear away from factual discipline and proper thought-processes. [...]

Within each ponerogenic union, a psychological structure is created which can be considered a counterpart or caricature of the normal structure of society or a societal organization. Individuals with various psychological aberrations complement each other’s talents and characteristics. This structure is subjected to diachronic modification with regard to changes in the character of the association as whole. The earlier phase of the union’s activity is usually dominated by characteropathic, particularly paranoid, individuals, who often play an inspirational or spellbinding role in the ponerization process. [...]

In the ponerogenic process of the pathocratic phenomenon, characteropathic individuals adopt ideologies created by doctrinaire, often schizoidal people, recast them into an active propaganda form, and disseminate it with pathological egotism and paranoid intolerance for any philosophies which may differ from their own. They also inspire further transformation of this ideology into its pathological counterpart. Something which had a doctrinaire character and circulated in numerically limited groups is now activated at societal level, thanks to their spellbinding possibilities.

It strikes me that the real interpretation of the dream was that "ri" felt that his life was a cemetery - things were a bit dead - and he was going to use this relationship (and dream of same) as a means to "liven things up" a bit... to spell-bind (notice the behavior of the new arrivals in the dream) and nobody would pay attention to the girl (who was a problem anyway and just a means to an end) and instead, because of his "sexual energy", would be attracted to his "bats in the belfry" and be fascinated by them while "ri," himself would "rise like the sun" to illuminate everything for everyone.

In short, he had an agenda and anart just spoiled it and how dare she??!!

 

[Ruth]

I am in a cemetery with a girl. [In real life she has a partner, but there is a sexual energy between us - nothing has happened yet.] In the dream it does start to happen - in the cemetery.

This indicates that your relationship with this girl is truly 'dead', where else, but in a graveyard?

The foreplay gets interupted by a group of people her age [shes 26 im 36] who have come into the graveyard/ cemetery. The girl is worried that its her boyfriend with other friends.

Does this indicate their disapproval of your 'relationship'?

They take no notice of us and walk on by. There are more people now and they are looking away from us over a wall. I see that they are observing bats. HUndreds of them, if not thousands! They are silhouetted in a pastel pink sky at sunset. I too am now fascinated by them. I am not paying the girl any attention. I have forgotten about her. The group of us observe these bats until the bright morning sunshine has cleared the skies of bats.

I'm wondering who thinks who is 'bats'. And not just a little batty, but a lot of them...? It just seems to be the thing everyone is noticing, not a potentially inappropriate or 'dead' relationship (that occured in the past).

If this woman has a partner in real life, why do you put yet at the end of this sentence?

Because most men are conditioned by society to expect sex especially when 'making out' regardless of how appropriate it is in time and place. That is my simplistic view anyway. :D

Wow, I've just noticed something about this thread. It contains both sex and criticism. What a rip snorter.