Programs.. and how to get rid of them

[Russ]

Like mada85, I've found the same. Yet social interactions can be a fantastic environment wherein you can observe yourself and your programs. I admit that sometimes when talking with someone or even posting on this forum, I'm worried that a program might slip through and take control, but then again that is the whole point! If we never interacted with others (in real life or in this forum), we wouldn't even know these programs existed. When you think about it, it's absurd to try to resist it if you don't even know what it is you're resisting yet. Our social interaction provides the perfect situation for observing programs.

But it also seems to be no accident that the general society is set up to hide these programs, and even reward them. I think this is why people can take so much offense, and just one of the reasons why its so easy to keep slipping back. Theres a much higher standard on these forums than there is in nearly any other part of the world. Theres certain "accepted rubbish" that happens in the real world, on these forums you could say there is an air of "to be cruel to be kind", but in the outside world, its more like "to be kind to be cruel", which for the most part is just another program, and not intentional - a program that will run on us flawlessly, like a virus on a computer, until the day its noticed and gradually removed. Even then, you need to keep these programs, because the world requires you to "fit in", I mean the way its set up, you can't be too different or it ends up making things worse. Going around being honest with people is a good way to get "outcast" by the society. So you need a seperate society where observation and elimination of programs can be accepted and can be seen as a social benefit, and maybe more importantly, an environment where people know what you're going through, osit.

Not many people want to raise any eyebrows, or cause any rifts. People want to accept a system so they can be less responsible, and "get on with their lives" with no trouble. But the way the soceities are set up seems to be, if you try to cause no trouble, you cause trouble, and if you try to avert trouble, you cause trouble - too much for one person to handle, I think. So then there is only one way out, and thats grouping with like minded people.

 

[Nathan]

So you're saying there are some programs that may be necessary to retain in order to meet the minimum requirements of "fitting in"? I find that quite interesting. Perhaps there are some programs you have discovered, turned around and then used to your advantage? Or at least taken note of the behaviour these programs have exhibited and wisely emulated them when you've deemed necessary? At least in this instance, you are aware and are observing these programs, perhaps running them instead of allowing them to run you? Hmm ... tricky but maybe quite useful.

Not many people want to raise any eyebrows, or cause any rifts.

Yes, and while this "path of least resistance" might seem logical to many, we have learnt that avoiding disagreements and conflicts can keep our programs hidden from us.

One thing I like about this forum is that not only are people thinking critically (or thinking with a hammer) in regards to their research and analysis of world events, but also of each other. And while we might be, at least initially, uncomfortable with the idea that our behaviour is being observed very closely by other like-minded individuals, we soon realise that we are all in this together.

 

[mada85]

So you're saying there are some programs that may be necessary to retain in order to meet the minimum requirements of "fitting in"? I find that quite interesting. Perhaps there are some programs you have discovered, turned around and then used to your advantage? Or at least taken note of the behaviour these programs have exhibited and wisely emulated them when you've deemed necessary? At least in this instance, you are aware and are observing these programs, perhaps running them instead of allowing them to run you? Hmm ... tricky but maybe quite useful.

I think you have put your finger on something important here, Nathan. When we've seen our programs, and understood how they work, we are then free to use them in the appropriate circumstances; much like an actor on the stage uses the script of the play, speaking the right words at the right time. This, imho, is a way of meeting the requirements of the General Law, which often manifests through others' automatism.

On this thread you will find a post by Laura which addresses this issue with great clarity. It's the 6th post on the first page. She is discussing 'acting the part' in terms of relationships and family life, and she presents some remarks from Gurdjieff, but what she is saying applies to all areas of life. I found this to be one of the most helpful things I've ever read. Actually I've read it several times because it is very useful in demolishing the newage/human potential idea of 'expressing your authentic self'.

There's a thread on Czeslaw Milosz's book, The Captive Mind which discusses the idea from a different angle.

 

[anart]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you (Russ,Nathan,Mada) but it seems that it might be important to point out that one cannot use 'programs' consciously, else they would not be programs.

What it seems you are all suggesting is actually 'playing a role' or even 'creating a strategic enclosure' - - not 'keeping certain programs'. 'Playing a role' is done consciously - as is creating a strategic enclosure - thus they cannot be 'programs'.

It may be necessary, however, to retain (or at least recall) certain aspects of your false personality so that you can utilize them as you play a role. ;)

 

[Russ]

Yes Anart, thanks, thats a much better way of putting it.

I remember reading something in the sessions which I think is related, from 95/06/17:
A: Imagine a conversation between two people: Billy and
Gene. Billy says to Gene, "There is no such thing as time."
Gene says, "Oh, really? But I want to know what it is." Billy
says, "But I just told you there is no such thing. Time does not
exist. It is not real in any form, in any frame of reference, in
any form of reality, any level of density. It simply does not
exist." And, Gene says: "Oh, that's interesting. Now, again,
what is this time?"
Q: (L) Point taken. (T) Do you wear a watch? (L) No. (SV)
I have to because of my schedule. (T) But, you wear the
watch because other people believe in time? (SV) Yes. (T)
And that is out of courtesy for their belief, not your belief.
A: That is precisely correct. While you are still in this third
density it is still necessary for you to conform, to a certain
extent, to the ways of others who are more comfortable
within the realm of third density. But, as we have stated
previously, perhaps it is "time" for you to begin preparing for
fourth density and not concern yourself any more than is
absolutely necessary with all the where's and why's and what
for's of third density reality. This truly is behind you, now, and
we know that because we can see from all levels six through
one and back again in full cycle.

 

[mada85]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you (Russ,Nathan,Mada) but it seems that it might be important to point out that one cannot use 'programs' consciously, else they would not be programs.

What it seems you are all suggesting is actually 'playing a role' or even 'creating a strategic enclosure' - - not 'keeping certain programs'. 'Playing a role' is done consciously - as is creating a strategic enclosure - thus they cannot be 'programs'.

Yes, that is what I was getting at

It may be necessary, however, to retain (or at least recall) certain aspects of your false personality so that you can utilize them as you play a role. ;)

Considering Anart's remarks, I wonder if 'playing a role' is, in fact, a helpful method for helping one to see one's programs and overcome them. For example, let us imagine that I have a program of avoiding contact with people because I become uncomfortable around them, but I understand that this is because my self-image is being challenged, and that I am attached to my self-importance. I wish to change this, so, let's say that I decide to 'play the role' of someone who is at ease with others, and doesn't hold himself aloof from them. I can practice this in many situations: at the supermarket check-out; with friends; at work. I make little steps along this new path, which gives me confidence in my ability to make beneficial changes in my inner world.

When I practice in this way, two things happen. Firstly, I become acquainted with a more relaxed state of being, and a more conscious state of being; although, initially, greater tension results because I am going against a deeply ingrained habitual way of being. Secondly, I have the opportunity to observe my program arising and trying to follow its usual course, i.e. controlling me, but my role-playing gives me a different platform from which to observe this. I can now see the 'aloofness program' as something that is 'not me'. In time, through observation and withholding of energy, the program will lose its hold on me.

This is a way of 'doing what "it" doesn't like'.

This process seems to be helpful, from my own experience, although it does appear to be something that cannot be rushed: one does the Work, and things move at their own natural pace.

As the Chinese proverb says: The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step…

To which could be added: …and continues single step by single step.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Programs are automatic, mechanical reactions. As Anne says, if they are being controlled, they are not programs. Once a program is identified and understood, it can be judged as being positive or negative. If it is seen as negative (i.e. hindering the pursuit of your aim - to be free and aware) it can be eradicated. If it is seen as positive (i.e. it is useful in the aim of becoming an autonomous individual), it can be consciously used. For example, a tendency to obsession, as a program, is automatic and can lead to all sorts of fruitless and wasteful endeavors. Once identified and understood, the negative aspects of this tendency can be eradicated and the tendency can be consciously directed towards something useful. For example, you can choose to obsess about becoming free and becoming a better person.

 

[PepperFritz]

I wonder if 'playing a role' is, in fact, a helpful method for helping one to see one's programs and overcome them. For example, let us imagine that I have a program of avoiding contact with people because I become uncomfortable around them, but I understand that this is because my self-image is being challenged, and that I am attached to my self-importance. I wish to change this, so, let's say that I decide to 'play the role' of someone who is at ease with others, and doesn't hold himself aloof from them. I can practice this in many situations: at the supermarket check-out; with friends; at work. I make little steps along this new path, which gives me confidence in my ability to make beneficial changes in my inner world.

I think this is the idea behind C.S. Lewis' saying "We must wear masks until we have faces". I think the important thing is to realize that none of the "roles" that we play is "I", and that we have the ability to change the role that we are playing at any time. My understanding is (and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that a "program" is an unconscious and automatic role that we play, and which we mistakenly confuse as being inseparable from "I". Once we become aware of the program, aware of the fact that we are only playing a role, we are able to consciously choose whether to continue playing the role, based on its advantages/disadvantages.

 

[PepperFritz]

Once identified and understood, the negative aspects of this tendency can be eradicated and the tendency can be consciously directed towards something useful. For example, you can choose to obsess about becoming free and becoming a better person.

I have found that almost every personality trait has a "positive" and "negative" aspect to it, can be either constructive or destructive according to how, when, and where it is applied. For instance, someone who has a tendency to be "controlling" usually has very useful skills in a job situation that requires a high degree of organization, attention to detail, multi-tasking, etc. However, that tendency can be highly disruptive in the context of personal relationships, when other people's behaviour become the object of the impulse to control. When the trait is part of an unconscious, automatic "program", it gets applied indiscriminately, to all situations, regardless of advantage/disadvantage. But once you become aware of the trait, you can begin to learn when and where it is a "useful" tool, and when and where it is counter-productive, and start to consciously direct it. You become master of the trait [program], rather than the trait [program] being master of you.

 

[anart]

I think this is the idea behind C.S. Lewis' saying "We must wear masks until we have faces".

Actually, I think it might be closer to the point, to say that after we have developed 'our faces' (a real 'I') that it is often necessary to continue to wear a mask - out of external consideration for others and building and keeping a strategic enclosure. It is important to remember that 'playing a role' is a conscious behavior - it is not merely wearing a mask until we have a face (or develop a singular 'I').

C.S. Lewis' saying is certainly applicable in that everything is a mask (fake/lies to the self) until there is a real 'I' - but the point of 'playing a role' is that one really cannot do that until after they have developed some modicum of a 'real I' that must be protected.

Really, the ultimate point seems to be to observe programs (which is pretty much all one is at the beginning) so that one can truly determine what is false and what is real - and then to 'feed' what is real and to 'starve' what is false. The conscious aspect of this will increase with time and effort - and then, when there is a real 'I' that is budding and growing inside, there may come a time when it must be protected - thus the necessity to 'play a role' in order to protect oneself from the 'General Law' which will work with all its power to prevent the 'real I' from developing.

This is a really simplified explanation of what's behind 'playing a role' - hopefully I've not further confused the issue.

 

[Russ]

As a side question, I am curious - does anyone in SOTT or QFS etc have a real I? Or is everyone still working on it, with some closer than others? Not that you would stop working when you did, but still :) I know its an odd question, but it would be interesting to know if anyone has acheieved it, or is very close to it.

 

[PepperFritz]

Actually, I think it might be closer to the point, to say that after we have developed 'our faces' (a real 'I') that it is often necessary to continue to wear a mask - out of external consideration for others and building and keeping a strategic enclosure. It is important to remember that 'playing a role' is a conscious behavior - it is not merely wearing a mask until we have a face (or develop a singular 'I').... C.S. Lewis' saying is certainly applicable in that everything is a mask (fake/lies to the self) until there is a real 'I' - but the point of 'playing a role' is that one really cannot do that until after they have developed some modicum of a 'real I' that must be protected.... hopefully I've not further confused the issue.

Not at all. You have provided the clarification that my post needed. Thank you.

 

[Aiming]

As a side question, I am curious - does anyone in SOTT or QFS etc have a real I? Or is everyone still working on it, with some closer than others? Not that you would stop working when you did, but still :) I know its an odd question, but it would be interesting to know if anyone has acheieved it, or is very close to it.

Had you achieved to crystallize your real I, would you go about telling everybody who's curious?
There would first of all be no ego that needs to show itself.
Second, what would you gain from knowing who has achieved this?
This could really lead to a cult then, the one with the real I becoming a kind of guru or idol, without wanting it, but having caused it, because he has revealed himself.
Revealing such a thing could unleash dynamics among us we could probably not handle. osit
This is a platform to commonly share and contribute and not a platform to worship 'the one with the real I'.
It's networking, consisting of many. As soon as somebody is revealed (if he existed) as outstanding, because he has attained already what we're striving for, the whole meaning and foundations would be shifted, and who knows in what direction. osit

I think you've not implied this when asking your question. But just t h i n k about the range of possible implications.

(Hope this doesn't sound harsh or 'from above'. It is simply meant as a thing to neutrally consider. After all, I'm new to this forum. Still, I thought it important to point out.)

 

[atreides]

As a side question, I am curious - does anyone in SOTT or QFS etc have a
real I? Or is everyone still working on it, with some closer than others? Not that
you would stop working when you did, but still :) I know its an odd question, but it
would be interesting to know if anyone has acheieved it, or is very close to it.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Don't listen to what a man tells you, but what he shows, and be very wary of any man
who shows you 'a thing.' There can never be certainty, because something that is certain
is a violation of free will. A man may, for a short time, act as if he is what he is not,
to convince a person. There always needs to be a conflict between yes and no, a fuzzy
esoteric logic, of both is/is not.

If a man tells you he has one I, he is lying, if he shows you he has one I he is acting.
There is no way to really know, so your question really isn't very productive. As a theory
though, I would imagine that when you are not certain if a person has one I or many, then
he is more likely to have made it, the more uncertain you are the closer he probably is.
Each moment should bring doubt and confirmation together so that there is a choice. If
there is no choice, you are being duped!

What I know is I have to get rid of predatorial programs and of
those that originate from other psychological conditioning.

Why? And how do you define a predatorial program? How do you know how to distinguish
between what is predatorial and what is not predatorial?

In discussions on this forum concerning 'programs' it has been said
(as far as I've understood it) that those programs need to be fougt.

I am fairly certain that this is very backwards and over simplified. It is also dangerous.
You really run the risk off allowing one I to attack another I. That's not too
terribly productive, esoteric work isn't the UFC.

So, I've been fighting against programs coming up, if I noticed them
in time and not only after a situation has occured.

The thing is, however, some of these programs are so massive, so forceful, that even if
I fight them with all my strength in the very time they are occuring, they simply keep
running and running. This goes so far that I (the observing and fighting part) am desperately
trying to block the program, while the program simultaneously keeps running, as if it was
detached from me, as if it existed no matter if I was there or not. And the worst thing is,
it affects my behaviour and body language, although (!) I am fighting it!

That's really not suprising, it sounds to me like your fighting is more or less another
program. What you are writing is particularly ambiguous, there is more or less 0 substance
to what you are saying, almost as if you are putting it out there to simply look busy, in case Jesus
is coming.

With predatorial programs I simply try to block them.

And you've seen how effective that is. No matter how the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow.

With psychological conditioning programs (ie patterns arising from childhood,
gender, personal issues etc) I first track them back and then, too, try to block them. As,
so far, tracking them back does not lead to their elimination.

All in the span of a few months? Why are you trying to eliminate anything. You must first
be qualified to diagnose those parts of you, and that requires much time and study.

In theory, the most logical way to handle psychological conditioning
programs would be to substitute them with conscious behaviour, b e f o r e another
program makes its way through. OSIT

Hrmm, that doesn't sound right at all. You see, the problem is this, first and foremost,
in order to do what you are saying, you must be able to be conscious, how else can you
supplement an unconscious behavior with a conscious one? What you are saying is
likened to an amateur surgeon removing what he sees as diseased tissues, and replacing
them with hand made prosthetics...

And: Is blocking/repressing a program actually the real way on the path towards STO?

You probably shouldn't use that word yet. Before you start thinking you want to be STO,
maybe you should develop the ability to make those kinds of choices. Blocking and repressing
is completely not STO in anyway, and blocking and repressing your inner I's is really
not only not productive, but again, most likely, really dangerous.

>> Or is the way to handle these programs 'simply' to keep blocking them, many many
years, always blocking them, and if this is done for a specific amount of time, you have 'won' over
them, so to speak? ie Just keep fighting them and after you've accumulated years of experience and
therefore 'energy', there will be a point where nothing of this kind can enter you anymore?<<

Nope. Always these ideas of fighting, blocking, repressing, winning. I hope I never encounter the day
when "nothing of this kind can enter [me] anymore." What a deadly dull time that would be. Perhaps
you should do this exercise, start reversing every one of your ideas, maybe write them down
and see how they make sense in reverse.

In fact, reverse absolutely everything. Say that everything you think is good is bad, and what you
think is bad is good, how you hate what you like to do and like what you hate to do.

Considering how naturally backwards we are, I imagine you'd be alot closer to objectivity that way.

 

[PepperFritz]

As a side question, I am curious - does anyone in SOTT or QFS etc have a real I? Or is everyone still working on it, with some closer than others? Not that you would stop working when you did, but still :) I know its an odd question, but it would be interesting to know if anyone has acheieved it, or is very close to it.

Well, here's my take on this question, for what it's worth:

The C's have indicated that as third-density beings, we are not capable of becoming STO, since the STS orientation is endemic to this density, necessary for us to learn third-density lessons. One can evolve to the level of an "STO candidate" at best. I would imagine that the same would be true regarding programs and achieving a "real I" -- i.e., that programs are also endemic to third-density existence, and that we could never completely free ourselves from them in this density, since they are part of the lesson plan.

I think those seriously involved in "the Work" endeavour to turn their orientation towards STO and away from STS, and to peel away as many "program" layers as they can, not in order to arrive at some ultimate "goal", but simply to prepare as well as possible for the 4th density existence that may or may not await them. They strive to become more STO oriented because it is a more meaningful way to live, and they work at eliminating programs because it is better to be awake than asleep.

I'm trying to imagine how one would answer your question in the affirmative in any meaningful way. I would think that just as the fact that someone claimed to have achieved an STO orientation would be a sure sign that they have not, the fact that someone stepped forward and claimed to have freed themselves from all "programs" and discovered their "real I" would be the best indication that they are far from having done so.

As someone suggested above, the only real way to identify someone is truly "advanced" in these areas is by direct observation of their behaviour and "fruits". Of course, I imagine that you would have to be fairly well along that path yourself in order to make such an identification. I doubt that I could at this point in my development.