Philip Gardiner, Homosexuality and Alchemy Disinformation

[name]

@Laura:
in that long post at 19:55 , specifically in the gurdjieff quote, you've managed to touch on a very personal problem situation i've been trying to solve since about 4 years w/o success. one consequence of this situation is the general unfriendliness and dark mood which see in all my posting on this forum (and which ppl who know me IRL also see). what G. says is not a solution but an informative hint. thanks for that.

 

[anart]

isn't that quesiton a bit naive ? so, mada85: would you take same test here in the thread, after having replaced 'heterosexual' for 'homosexual' ?

You entirely missed the point - the questionnaire is exactly what non-thinking heterosexual people ask homosexual people every single day - what Mada was doing was showing the absurdity of this type of thinking - the same type of thinking you have evidenced - by turning the tables. Did you really not get that?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Name, your post shows the usual 'I'm a superior heterosexual' attitude exhibited by many unconscious hetero types. The tone of your post is offensive and arrogant. You show absolutely no empathy for a persecuted minority – it seems that you don't really want to understand anything, you're just looking for 'scientific' ammunition for your abusive ideas.

i neither see myself as 'superior' to homosexuals nor am i seeking for 'scientific ammo' for my abusive ideas. if anything i'm coming here with wrong ideas and dumb questions, and the response, so far, has been very informative to me about myself.

How can you presume to know your own intentions? You are acting as though you have an "I", but you are simply running programs. A complete machine. We are all this way. When you say you are not seeking scientific ammo for your abusive ideas, you may believe it. But it IS what you are doing. It is an unconscious, automatic bias. When one is identified with a belief, it is common to seek out data that will confirm this belief in order to avoid a "disintegrative state". As Cyre said, it is called subconscious selection of premises. Subconscious.

Well, name, I am 'one of them' and the attitude demonstrated in this phrase alone is disgusting. And not being one of 'them' according to you, is just for starters. What comes next? Burning at the stake? Doth name protest too much? Or are you truly terrified of 'the love that dare not speak its name'?

i am not one of them. how does that statement of fact testify of a disgusting attitude ? the rest are your assumptions.

Here you are confusing connotation for denotation. While technically "them" is a neutral word, it has some MAJOR negative connotations. Perhaps this is a language barrier thing, but your use of the term "them" for homosexuals shows an extreme lack of external consideration.

Finally, here's a questionnaire for heterosexuals. You might like to consider these questions in the light of your arrogant and insulting post, which shows a bigoted lack of empathy and awareness.

your epithets are insulting to say the least.

What part of you is insulted? Emotional reactions are almost always inappropriate to the circumstances leading to them. The fact is, your posts have been arrogant and insulting. This is not to say that you INTENDED them to be this way. You are just unaware that you are a programmed automaton when it comes to your "opinions" on homosexuality. Again, we are all programmed. But it takes something more to be able to SEE our own programs for what they are. We have to realize that they are not a real part of us. They are "foreign installations". And they're perfectly normal. We're just trying to get rid of ours here.

As for the questionnaire and your answers to it, I think you missed the point. At least, the impression I got of the questions was that they were designed to show you just how dumb the questions really were. What does sexuality have to do with teaching ability? Nothing. The fact is, heterosexuals or fanatic closet-homosexuals (w/ reaction formations) ask these type of questions of homosexuals, thinking they mean something.

Some examples:

1. What do you think has caused you to be heterosexual?
i guess i was born that way. dont know.

2. When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?
at about age 4, when i first played doctor with a girl of about my age.

3. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of people of the same sex?
no. i'd say it has more to with my preference for women.

The fact is, a homosexual would probably give the same responses. Did this thought occur to you when writing?

 

[tschai]

Not to butt in-but eventually we all will become androgynous-so the question of sexuality will become a moot point.

The focus on sexuality is a distraction. This is a free will Universe and all things are permitted with each seeking their path as they see fit, and matches their current vibration-or in other words, to each their own.

You do not need to see our identification-move along... ;)

 

[Peto]

Not to butt in-but eventually we all will become androgynous-so the question of sexuality will become a moot point.

We all will become union with God so all these worldly matters will become a moot point

The focus on sexuality is a distraction. This is a free will Universe and all things are permitted with each seeking their path as they see fit, and matches their current vibration-or in other words, to each their own.

I don't think the focus on this thread is on sexuality, correct me if I'm wrong. It is on the perception of it and how that perception leads to a host of problems.

 

[Azur]

Not to butt in-but eventually we all will become androgynous-so the question of sexuality will become a moot point.

We all will become union with God so all these worldly matters will become a moot point

The focus on sexuality is a distraction. This is a free will Universe and all things are permitted with each seeking their path as they see fit, and matches their current vibration-or in other words, to each their own.

I don't think the focus on this thread is on sexuality, correct me if I'm wrong. It is on the perception of it and how that perception leads to a host of problems.

Sexuality is a vector (one of many). This thread has been about a vector (in this case sexuality), that has plunged into the real problem: self-perception within and as measured against a social convention. The latter most certainly has been imposed in insidious ways, for particular reasons.

Also, a term was used earlier that is interesting: aversion. Whenever I have seen expression of this term to describe a person's reaction to a situation, it has ALWAYS been because they had a "set" of wants, or desires of how they wanted things to be and the situation present was at "odds" with that set. The "set" could have been a result of social programming, i.e. you should only accept "this" and limit everything you do and experience to these guidelines, or it could be innate, or come from something else, again.

Aversion seems to be a natural automatic buffer. For example, I really do not want to see child abuse in any way. That child abuse happens, although unwanted (by me but others, as ugly as that may seem, carry it out), having an "aversion" to it only means you look away, go "somewhere" else, while not really seeing that it is happening, or you may see it happening, and cannot, will not, accept that it can happen.

Aversion, in essence, is a pre-judgment (and denial) of what is not welcomed, even if it exists. Having an "aversion" to something means not wanting to look at something that you decided was ugly (and the key term here is decided), and thereby short-circuiting any possibility of understanding WHY you think it is ugly.

A tri-lateral reconciliation of perceived want, objectively determined want and observed reality is the focus.


Cheers.

 

[Rich]

I don't think the focus on this thread is on sexuality, correct me if I'm wrong. It is on the perception of it and how that perception leads to a host of problems.

In reading 'bringers of the dawn' this jumped out on p54

In the next few years, a connectedness and communal cooperation will begin to run through this country so that you will stop separating yourselves with respect to political ideology. That separation was designed. Whenever a people are separated, and they focus on what they do not have in common or label themselves different from others, it is a perfect disguise to keep them from discovering what they do have in common. This separation keeps people from banding together and becoming very strong.

Having a frank and open discussion on sexuality is important but in my opinion this is a way of name finding his chief fault.

The study of the chief fault and the struggle against it constitute, as it were, each man's individual path, but the aim must be the same for all. This aim is the realisation of one's nothingness. Only when a man has truly and sincerely arrived at the conviction of his own helplessness and nothingness and only when he feels it constantly, will he be ready for the next and much more difficult stages of the work

would that be a valid interpretation?

 

[tschai]

In response to hoangmphung-

According to what is the "working hypothesis"of the C's all will eventually merge with the "One" in seventh density-if you want to call that "God" that's cool. I do not want to derail the thread by going off on a tangent.

I guess my point was-why keep arguing with (someone) that really does not seem to want to accept there may be alternative view points.

 

[Azur]

In response to hoangmphung-

According to what is the "working hypothesis"of the C's all will eventually merge with the "One" in seventh density-if you want to call that "God" that's cool. I do not want to derail the thread by going off on a tangent.

I guess my point was-why keep arguing with (someone) that really does not seem to want to accept there may be alternative view points.

Let sleeping dogs lie, Tchai, they will all simply merge with the One, at some point. The question is: what is it that will be merged?

 

[Laura]

In a book entitled "Sex In History" by G.R. Taylor (1954), he proposes that there are two basic kinds of people. I don't necessarily agree with his ideas as he has framed them, but he did come up with an interesting list that I would like to share here.

Patrist - Father-Identifiers

1. Restrictive attitude to sex
2. Limitation of freedom for women
3. Women seen as inferior, sinful
4. Chastity more valued than welfare
5. Politically authoritarian
6. Conservative: against innovation
7. Distrust of research, inquiry
8. Inhibition, fear of spontaneity
9. Deep fear of homosexuality
10. Sex differences maximised (dress)
11. Asceticism, fear of pleasure
12. Father religion - "Thou shall not break the Ten Commandments or you will burn in hell"

Matrist Mother-Identifiers

1. Permissive attitude to sex
2. Freedom for women
3. Women accorded high status
4. Welfare more valued than chastity.
5. Politically Democratic
6. Progressive: revolutionary
7. No distrust of research
8. Spontaneity: exhibition
9. Deep fear of incest (pedophilia)
10. Sex differences minimised
11. Hedonism, pleasure welcomed
12. Mother religion - "God is all loving, all forgiving and all understanding"

Now, I don't necessarily agree with all the ways Taylor has divided the issue, it's just a platform to think about things. What occurs to me is that he has failed to take into account psychopathy and its influence on human society.

For example, in our present mostly patristic society, there is an awful lot of homophobia being promoted. What is bizarre about it is that the psychopaths at the top of the heap that use this as a "fear prod" are so often exposed as having those tendencies in the psychopathic way, certainly not as a normal variation. At the same time, there are a lot of sex based tabus being promulgated by these same "moral majority" types, conservatives, whatever you want to call them, and again and again one or another of their membership is exposed as doing the very things they rail against! Like how many sex scandals have exposed this or that "moral arbiter" of our society?

I dunno. What do ya'll think about such a list of "divisions"?

 

[Peto]

In response to hoangmphung-

According to what is the "working hypothesis"of the C's all will eventually merge with the "One" in seventh density-if you want to call that "God" that's cool. I do not want to derail the thread by going off on a tangent.

I guess my point was-why keep arguing with (someone) that really does not seem to want to accept there may be alternative view points.

Tschai, you missed my point. You said that we will all become androgynous, which is in 4D, so sexuality, which is one of the lessons at 3D, will be a moot point. My point is that we are not there in 4D yet so the lessons at 3D are what concern us now. They are not a moot point, not yet. Unless we learn them well, we will never be in 4D.

 

[mada85]

your epithets are insulting to say the least.

My epithets reflected the tone of your post. Perhaps that is why you found them insulting.

- (added) is innate homosexuality a selector for essential psychopathy ?

Appearing at the end of a post which displayed a strong lack of empathy and external considering, and a non-thinking attitude to gay and lesbian people, this reads more like a statement rephrased as a question than as a true question. The kind of question that says, 'Right. My opinions are facts. Now where's the evidence to back me up? I want you lot to provide it for me.'

Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr
University of Georgia

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of non-homophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980).
The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Doth name protest too much? Or are you truly terrified of 'the love that dare not speak its name'?

If you are not terrified of homosexuality, why is it such a huge turn-off for you? '200% turn-off' sounds like much more than a simple preference. Maybe you meant to say 'preference', I don't know, but what you actually said looks more like disgust and revulsion than preference. And that set the tone for everything that followed in your post. In George Orwell's novel, 1984, the pathocrats have been steadily replacing English with Newspeak: '200% turn-off' would be 'double-plus turn-off'. Limited vocabulary leads to limited thinking.

…only a person who is completely normal as regards sex has any chance in the work. Any kind of 'originality,' strange tastes, strange desires, or, on the other hand, fears, constantly working 'buffers,' must be destroyed from the very beginning.

Part of the goal of this thread is to destroy our buffers. Homophobia is one of those buffers IMHO.

As for the questionnaire and your answers to it, I think you missed the point. At least, the impression I got of the questions was that they were designed to show you just how dumb the questions really were. What does sexuality have to do with teaching ability? Nothing. The fact is, heterosexuals or fanatic closet-homosexuals (w/ reaction formations) ask these type of questions of homosexuals, thinking they mean something.

isn't that quesiton a bit naive ? so, mada85: would you take same test here in the thread, after having replaced 'heterosexual' for 'homosexual' ?

You entirely missed the point - the questionnaire is exactly what non-thinking heterosexual people ask homosexual people every single day - what Mada was doing was showing the absurdity of this type of thinking - the same type of thinking you have evidenced - by turning the tables. Did you really not get that?

The questionnaire was designed to highlight how ridiculous the questions really are.

1. What do you think has caused you to be homosexual?
i guess i was born that way. dont know.

2. When and how did you first decide you were a homosexual?
at about age 4, when i first played doctor with a boy of about my age.

3. Is it possible your homosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of people of the opposite sex?
no. i'd say it has more to with my preference for men.

The non-thinking heterosexual assumes their own superiority and this assumption colours their attitudes to gay and lesbian people. HK is absolutely correct when he says that a gay person could give exactly the same answers to the same questions, simply substituting 'homosexual' for 'heterosexual'. What is the real difference between us?

 

[Cyre2067]

I dunno. What do ya'll think about such a list of "divisions"?

I think his list is a little bunk.. or to rephrase, inadequate.

For example, I'm restrictive/promiscuous with my sexual activity depending on the seasons/weather and my current relationship status. If I'm in a relationship, I like to be with that person a lot, if I'm not in one I don't like the 'hook up' bit. This has varied a lot growing up too, college was less into relationships and more into 'hooking up', so overall there's a lot of variation. I'll go through periods of being celibate and then swing back into periods of being mildly promiscuous.

The other bit I don't like is how he describes attitudes towards women. My attitude towards women is open, until she proves herself 'hysterical' or narcissistic. At which point she seems to identify with that 'typical woman' tag they like to throw around here in the states. Attempting to point this out doesn't help, so generally i distance myself from said individuals. The same can go for men, however it varies subtly, the narcissism is definitely still there, but what I've seen is instead of a hysteric aspect they tend to be lacking in the ability to forsee the results of their actions and are primarily driven by their instinctual urges. Again, pointing out the err of their ways doesn't help, and so i distance myself from them.

With the 'style of dress' it's a bit odd, I have multiple styles of dress depending on what I'm doing. IE, if I'm going out in my hometown I'll dress in loose fitting camo pants and a witty tee shirt, maybe a hoody if its cold - typical 'straight guy' outfit for someone my age living where i do. If I'm going out to the gay clubs in philly I'll wear tighter jeans, a tight tee shirt, and a stylish jacket which clearly identifies me as a homosexual. I don't wear women's clothing, but my clothing can definitely range in style depending on what I want people to 'see' me as. Typically I blend in with the crowd, with minor flares that make me stick out.

With regard to hedonism - there's a time and a place, I like to relax in a 'hedonistic' fashion, but most of the time I restrict myself as to allow for personal growth and development of my will, so it's a toss up. I was wayyy more hedonistic growing up, but now I see most of it as programs.

All in all according to his list, I'm more often a matrist, but I haven't always been that way, nor do I have identify with all those traits.

 

[name]

@ HKoehli

your post was, to me, key in re-reading and understanding the whole thread in a very different light. that has been my weekend. what i've seen is not pretty, and it is scary as hell. it also gives me clues to my lack of understanding of enough of situations in RL similar to this one; the same for some books i have (by gurdjeff and ouspensky) but could not understand. the scary part is, if i'm an automation executing grafted-on programs: what chance do i have of ever changing anything about that, at all ? what about discarding the more unpleasant and/or destructive programs ? from where i stand the answer to both questions seems to be 'Nil'.

@Anart:
i went to therapy to deal with a badly banged up childhood and 'formative years', and the very real consequences of that heritage, which has been the only one i received. sex and sexuality, since it is the issue at hand here, weren't ever a problem or cause of culpability for me but rather a source of joy (having real relationships is written in another book, completely). that is in my view one of the paradox 'benefits' of having grown up in a very conservative catholic environment: since sex was anathema (it was truly never spoken of, neither in the positive nor in the negative sense), i could pretty much go about that part of my life without interference. the years in therapy helped me over some very bad years. to that extent i credit it with having been helpful. in retrospect and since it was mostly support to keep going on a daily basis probably lots of areas were left unexplored, but i eventually decided to stop: how would i ever learn to walk by myself if i didn't throw the crutches away ?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

@ HKoehli the scary part is, if i'm an automation executing grafted-on programs: what chance do i have of ever changing anything about that, at all ?

I think change comes naturally. What is no longer needed falls away, but it isn't necessarily a fast process. At first, all you can do is continue to observe yourself, knowing that you are not one, but two. Sometimes it will only be afterwards that you can see yourself, and sometimes you will see it as program is running. For example, it was only after the shock you received on this thread that you could see that programs were running your previous posts. However, if you can see a program running, you cannot just get rid of it. Best at this stage to observe.

One thing you can work on immediately, I think, is compassion, knowing that as you act out of ignorance, so does everyone else. That is, compassion for both your true self, which has been suppressed by a ruthless world, and for those who can not yet (or ever) see themselves as they truly are.