Programs.. and how to get rid of them

[mada85]

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.

The question is: if you met someone who had a real I, would you know it? The criteria for knowing if someone has a real I is having one yourself, imho.

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".

Outwardly, I want today to be polite, but if necessary I can appear angry. Outwardly it must be what is best for her and for me. I must consider. Internal and external considering must be different. In an ordinary man the external attitude is the result of the internal. If she is polite, I am also polite. But these attitudes should be separated.
Views from the Real World

If the recipient of such externally considered anger has an expectation that 'great teachers' or those with a real I are loving and kind and considerate, what are they to make of such a person's anger? Perhaps the 'fruits' of that anger will be increased self-knowledge for the recipient, but by its very nature, that cannot be measured or quantified. Equally, the 'fruit' of such anger may be that the person leaves the group that has formed around the person with a real I, feeling offended by such behaviour.

How would we be able to tell the difference between conscious, externally considered anger, and blindly automatic programmed anger?

And if the 'fruit' is the same in both cases, what then?

 

[Russ]

Thanks for the responses, I didn't know what to expect. I thought the best thing, since the thought had crossed my mind, was just to ask it and see what response I got.

From what I understand from some responses, a real I is necessary to act as a "reciever" for 4D STO being, but doesn't mean that you have attained STO being. So, even though you are making conscious choices, and have chosen to help others, you still have to eat, I suppose. Thats just something I picked up, I know it wasn't much to do with my question.

I wasn't really looking for someone to say, "I have a real I", but more like - there are people who seem to be getting close. I do trust people to a certain extent on here, but you know I don't trust anyone or anything 100% anyway, its just that sometimes you have to go with things because its the only option, or the one that works best. Its like if someone was studying anything, I might ask, "how far have you got?", just to get an idea of how far someone can get - not to say this isn't a fuzzy area, but I still ask just to see if NO ONE has even got close, it gives me an idea about how hard it is, if that makes sense.

Afterall, I have to ask, can Gurdjieff be tweaked? What man can be 100% right? Maybe he was wrong about some things eh. If no one has a real I yet, has Gurdjieff failed, or have we? Or is this the correct average timescale? This is just questions, not suggestions (I don't know afterall).

As for people revealing they are close or they have a real I, turning this into a cult, I dunno about that. Just because they say they have a real I doesn't mean anyone should trust them or that they should be in charge of everyone, imo. Perhaps the polarity of someone with a real I plays a role there - maybe there are people with real I's who are heading for 4D STS, running cults etc? I think there are certain guidelines here which would reveal that in someone.

 

[Niall]

I think Atreides has a real eye.

Actually, I think he's got two real eyes - way ahead of the class ;)

 

[Aiming]

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.

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...

How could what I am writing possibly has substance to it? What is to be expected of someone who's been doing the Work, that is t r y i n g to do the Work for only a couple of months? Especially because I totally misconceived how it is being done. I probably would have continued doing it the wrong way had I not asked my questions here on the forum. (And in post #20 on page 2 I explained how I figured this misunderstanding must have come about.)

I misconceived how the Work is being done and have gone about doing it the way I described it in my posts. This confronted me with great difficulty and that's why I asked my questions.
I can imagine they must have appeared real dull to you. But I was not putting out my words "to simply look busy, in case Jesus is coming".
I honestly tried to do the Work, but in a totally wrong way and that's what I've described, however, at that time not yet knowing how wrong I was.
Only through this thread did the whole impact dawn on me about how that wrong method has led me totally astray.

I have understood now that I am to go about doing the Work from an entirely different approach.


As to my post concerning what could emerge out of revealing the one with the real I.. my apologies. I've assumed a position I do not have. I wrote as if I knew anything, while obviously I don't. I've assumed the position of somebody who's been here for a long time, thinking my response could possibly be real contribution. There's definitely a big self-importance program going on. I hereby apologize. I'll work on this and this time first of all qualifying myself by really studying myself.
Thanks for your input.


edit: And as I wrote in the first post of this thread: I never had anyone to check on my method, had nobody reflecting me. I came here to learn. And I'm willing to learn. And I'm welcoming corrections as well as welcoming anybody pointing out where I am going wrong.

 

[kenlee]

Thanks for the responses, I didn't know what to expect. I thought the best thing, since the thought had crossed my mind, was just to ask it and see what response I got.

From what I understand from some responses, a real I is necessary to act as a "reciever" for 4D STO being, but doesn't mean that you have attained STO being. So, even though you are making conscious choices, and have chosen to help others, you still have to eat, I suppose. Thats just something I picked up, I know it wasn't much to do with my question.

You can view the 'Real 'I' as the "warrior within" that seeks to awaken. But it begins with the formation of the magnetic center and its affirmation. The 'fight' is a struggle to wake up to reality and to keep from falling asleep. The 'enemy' are those unconscious mechanical parts of you that keep you from this aim. Thus, in this sense, you must 'know the enemy.' You must thoroughly know your machine first. Its common sense. It starts with knowing, observing, and shedding light on your inner programs without trying to change anything in the beginning. Research the term 'magnetic center' in Ouspenskys book 'In Search Of The Miraculous' and in Mouravieffs works 'Gnosis'. It all begins with that. But any talk of 'Real I' and "reciever" for 4D STO being," is too theoretical.

 

[PepperFritz]

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".

The question is: if you met someone who had a real I, would you know it? The criteria for knowing if someone has a real I is having one yourself, imho.... If the recipient of such externally considered anger has an expectation that 'great teachers' or those with a real I are loving and kind and considerate, what are they to make of such a person's anger? Perhaps the 'fruits' of that anger will be increased self-knowledge for the recipient, but by its very nature, that cannot be measured or quantified. Equally, the 'fruit' of such anger may be that the person leaves the group that has formed around the person with a real I, feeling offended by such behaviour.... How would we be able to tell the difference between conscious, externally considered anger, and blindly automatic programmed anger?.... And if the 'fruit' is the same in both cases, what then?

That's why I added the proviso "Of course, I imagine that you would have to be fairly well along that path yourself in order to make such an identification." Which mirrors what you are saying when you state "The criteria for knowing if someone has a real I is having one yourself." In other words, I think we are saying the same thing, yes?

 

[mada85]

That's why I added the proviso "Of course, I imagine that you would have to be fairly well along that path yourself in order to make such an identification." Which mirrors what you are saying when you state "The criteria for knowing if someone has a real I is having one yourself." In other words, I think we are saying the same thing, yes?

Not really. There is a distinction between being 'fairly well along that path yourself' and having a real I. In fact it is a world of difference. The former implies one has not reached the goal of creating a real I, while the latter says that one has it.

Also, and forgive me if I'm completely wide of the mark here, but I get the impression from the above quote that you are somewhat piqued that I stated something that appeared to be a repeat of something you had stated earlier. Almost as though you regarded the idea as your property, and who was I to restate it in different words. That's my impression, fwiw, and could well be a purely subjective projection of mine into your words, and way off base.

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".

My point here, though, is that their behaviour may not appear as we might think it ought to, and the 'fruits' may not look like what we think they should, and so great discernment is required of us. There were and still are many people who think that Gurdjieff was some kind of crazy madman, not one of the greatest teachers who ever lived; and this judgement is made by them on the basis of G's behaviour. There is the famous story of Aleister Crowley's visit to the Prieure, and Gurdjieff's angry address to Crowley once he knew that Crowley was no longer a guest.

To Aleister Crowley, for example, who came to the Prieure for help with his drug addiction, Gurdjieff showed all due consideration - until Crowley was about to leave.

"Mister, you go?" Gurdjieff inquired. Crowley assented. "You have been guest?" - a fact which the visitor could hardly deny. "Now you go, you are no longer guest?" Crowley - no doubt wondering whether his host had lost his grip on reality and was wandering in a semantic wilderness - humored his mood by indicating that he was on his way back to Paris. But Gurdjieff, having made the point that he was not violating the canons of hospitality, changed on the instant into the embodiment of righteous anger. "You filthy," he stormed, "you dirty inside! Never again you set foot in my house!" . . . Whitefaced and shaking, the Great Beast crept back to Paris with his tail between his legs.

Amusing as it is, this incident also displays some of the problems one faces when trying to make sense of Gurdjieff.

The question is: what do you make of Gurdjieff's behaviour? Is this the behaviour you expect of a person with a real I? How do we know that Gurdjieff was not giving Crowley a shock in a way perfectly tailored to Crowley's personality? After all, G said: 'if necessary I can appear angry. Outwardly it must be what is best for her and for me.'

Again I may well be wide of the mark, but I have a nagging suspicion that you do have an expectation of how a person with a real I should behave.

Edit: just found a couple of interesting remarks that seem relevant:

«Because of his reputation», wrote Fritz Peters, «people rarely came into contact with an individual named Gurdjieff; they met instead, the image that was already created in their minds».

«For example», testified Henri Tracol, «he never hesitated to cause doubts to be raised on himself with the type of language he used, with his calculated contradictions and with his behavior, to such a point that the people around him, in particular whose who had the tendency to blindly idolize him, were finally forced to open their eyes to the chaos of their reactions».

 

[PepperFritz]

forgive me if I'm completely wide of the mark here, but I get the impression from the above quote that you are somewhat piqued that I stated something that appeared to be a repeat of something you had stated earlier. Almost as though you regarded the idea as your property, and who was I to restate it in different words. That's my impression, fwiw, and could well be a purely subjective projection of mine into your words, and way off base.

No, you're way off base. I wasn't "piqued" at all, I was simply try to ascertain whether we were in fact saying the same thing, and you have now clarified that we were not. I apologize if I gave that impression, I sometimes can sound "short" when I am trying to clarify something. Have to work on that.

My point here, though, is that their behaviour may not appear as we might think it ought to, and the 'fruits' may not look like what we think they should, and so great discernment is required of us.

I couldn't agree more. That is a very important point.

Again I may well be wide of the mark, but I have a nagging suspicion that you do have an expectation of how a person with a real I should behave.

You are extremely wide of the mark. I was actually trying to express the exact opposite. Frankly, I would not trust myself to be able to recognize someone who has a "real I", as I do not consider myself free enough of my own programs to make such a discernment. And I completely agree with you that most people would have the wrong kind of expectation as to how someone who is spiritually advanced "should" behave, which would be based more on religious and cultural notions rather than any kind of direct objective experience.

There were and still are many people who think that Gurdjieff was some kind of crazy madman, not one of the greatest teachers who ever lived; and this judgement is made by them on the basis of G's behaviour.... The question is: what do you make of Gurdjieff's behaviour?

Oh dear. I hesitate to answer this honestly, for fear of causing offence and/or not expressing myself accurately, but here goes, as best I can: The more I learn, the less I tend to think in black-and-white, right-or-wrong terms, and the less inclined I am to pass judgement on another's actions and behaviour. I hold neither opinion of Gurdjieff the man, neither "madman" nor "great teacher" -- nor "person who achieved his 'real I' ". I can only say that I have learned and benefitted a great deal from his writings. Since I'm not emotionally invested in any particular idea or image of Gurdjieff, I am not particularly "disturbed" by any aspect of his behaviour or work that strikes me as strange or questionable, as I neither expect perfection from teachers, nor assume that I am at the point of being able to understand all there is to understand.

Is this the behaviour you expect of a person with a real I?

To me, this is like someone asking me what my expectations of fourth-density reality are. Rather than calling up preconceptions, it causes me to draw a blank. Since I have not experienced it, how can I have expectations of what it "should" be? In the same way, I assume that I have never directly and objectively experienced the behaviour of someone with a "real I", and therefore simply cannot conceive of what it would be, let alone draw up a list of criteria.

Because of his reputation, wrote Fritz Peters, people rarely came into contact with an individual named Gurdjieff; they met instead, the image that was already created in their minds.

I think that rather sums up most of our personal relationships in general. Do any of us truly interact with the "real I" of another, or are we usually only responding to our image and idea of that person?

 

[atreides]

How could what I am writing possibly has substance to it? What is to be expected
of someone who's been doing the Work, that is t r y i n g to do the Work for
only a couple of months? Especially because I totally misconceived how it is being
done. I probably would have continued doing it the wrong way had I not asked my
questions here on the forum. (And in post #20 on page 2 I explained how I
figured this misunderstanding must have come about.)

My, you are a prickly pear. You say exactly what I have said, and will continue
to say. What you are doing is tantamount to someone who went
down to Kmart, got a plastic guitar and then chased down Eddie Vedder and asked
him to appraise your rendition of Better Man. Would you like a gold star?

I misconceived how the Work is being done and have gone about doing it the way I
described it in my posts. This confronted me with great difficulty and that's
why I asked my questions.

I noticed that, hence my reply. Yet you seem to think that you have found your
answer. Still you puff and blow smoke, reacting, acting, reacting, acting. Watching
you post is like being a party to a bumper pool game.

I can imagine they must have appeared real dull to you. But I was not putting
out my words "to simply look busy, in case Jesus is coming".

True, though now they are getting much more exciting.

I honestly tried to do the Work, but in a totally wrong way and that's what I've
described, however, at that time not yet knowing how wrong I was.
Only through this thread did the whole impact dawn on me about how that wrong
method has led me totally astray.

Testify brother, testify. You have been baptised and saved from eternal damnation.

I have understood now that I am to go about doing the Work from an entirely
different approach.

Well, since you understand so well, hey, why not teach me, cause I'd really like
to know.

As to my post concerning what could emerge out of revealing the one with the
real I.. my apologies. I've assumed a position I do not have. I wrote as if I
knew anything, while obviously I don't. I've assumed the position of somebody
who's been here for a long time, thinking my response could possibly be real
contribution. There's definitely a big self-importance program going on. I hereby
apologize. I'll work on this and this time first of all qualifying myself by
really studying myself.

Wow, it's the most amazing thing, it's like you say stuff, but it's completely meaningless.
You are actually apologizing for doing something as you are doing it. It's like, hey,
sorry I am decapitating you, saw, saw, saw.

Thanks for your input.

You're most welcome, there's more above and below :)

edit: And as I wrote in the first post of this thread: I never had anyone to
check on my method, had nobody reflecting me. I came here to learn. And I'm
willing to learn. And I'm welcoming corrections as well as welcoming anybody
pointing out where I am going wrong.

Hrmm, that just sounds very sincere, it would most likely be a bit better
if you meant a word of what you were saying.

 

[Nathan]

Hi Essence,

Since you have said you welcome anybody pointing out where you are going wrong, I couldn't help but notice something in your second last post:

I've assumed a position I do not have. I wrote as if I knew anything, while obviously I don't. I've assumed the position of somebody who's been here for a long time, thinking my response could possibly be [of] real contribution. There's definitely a big self-importance program going on. I hereby apologize.

Now I could be reading too much into things here, but your "sorry, I admit I was incorrect" spiel struck me as exaggerated and maybe a touch self-indulgent. You "obviously" do know something, otherwise you wouldn't even be on this forum. Your posts do contribute, although you may not see it that way presently.

In the above quote, you speak of a self-importance program. But the first thing that came to my mind was not a self-importance program but a self-pity program. And this can easily happen. When we realise we are wrong, we swallow our pride and admit we are in fact wrong, but at this point it's very easy to slip into the "I'm useless, I know nothing, poor little me" attitude (at least for me, anyway!). I've found myself slipping towards it on numerous occasions, particularly on this forum. From one program to another. Why? Perhaps because it has worked in the past. For example, by putting myself down in such a way, I could be hoping someone will turn around and say, "Oh there there, don't be upset. You're not as wrong as you thought. Here, have a compliment. And another. And another." But I know I'm not going to find that here. No one here will feel sorry for you, so all you can do is pick yourself up and get on with it. I have highlighted in bold the key words that seemed exaggerated to me and perhaps hinted at a "self-pity" program. You may want to read back through that post of yours and see if this was in fact the case. Even if there was no self-pity present, it's still something to be weary of in the future.

Anyway, in regards to this topic as a whole, I was reflecting on why so many of us have misunderstood how to contend with programs. In my opinion it’s because once we (and here, I speak for those of us who misunderstand) discover a program we are at once outraged and disgusted by it -- it threatens our previously false image of ourselves. We are disgusted much like we would be if we found a leech on our skin, sucking blood from us. As a result of this outrage and disgust, we immediately try to fight it (or rip the leech from our skin, if you like). We do this because, to us, it’s the logical response: to fight it, to destroy it. Or, as others have suggested, block or ignore it. It is my present understanding that neither are the answer. Both are just as ineffective as each other: fight or ignore, two opposing extremes. It has been pointed out numerous times in this thread that observation is the first step -- and the major step. I don’t claim to know what the process is beyond this step, and it may require a re-reading of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff’s material on my part to further my understanding, but I can say that some of the clarifications made in this thread have been immensely helpful to me and undoubtedly to others with a similarly basic grasp of the concept.

 

[mada85]

I wasn't "piqued" at all, I was simply try to ascertain whether we were in fact saying the same thing, and you have now clarified that we were not. I apologize if I gave that impression, I sometimes can sound "short" when I am trying to clarify something.

You are extremely wide of the mark. I was actually trying to express the exact opposite.

Thank you for the clarification.

When the only data available is words on a screen, it's very easy to meet 'instead, the image that was already created in their minds', and so clarification of this sort is very helpful in 'calibrating one's reading instrument'.

Do any of us truly interact with the "real I" of another,

Would we recognise their real I, if we did interact with a person who had one? Or would we just think, 'Hmm, there's something about that person…can't quite put my finger on it, but they seem to have 'something.'? Could it be that what we would see that 'something' as, would depend on many factors, perhaps the most important of which could be our basic Frequency Resonance Vibration - are we STS or STO? Just a thought.

or are we usually only responding to our image and idea of that person?

Hence the value of your clarifying responses to my questions in helping me to get rid of images and ideas

 

[Niall]

Would we recognise their real I, if we did interact with a person who had one? Or would we just think, 'Hmm, there's something about that person…can't quite put my finger on it, but they seem to have 'something.'? Could it be that what we would see that 'something' as, would depend on many factors, perhaps the most important of which could be our basic Frequency Resonance Vibration - are we STS or STO? Just a thought.

And a very subjective one at that. Bear in mind, Ooh, s/he has that 'something' is invariably the first impression a 'path makes on its prey.

helping me to get rid of images and ideas

I don't doubt that you find this thread helpful, however I think you are deluded if you believe that a two-way forum conversation has helped you 'get rid' of anything. These images and ideas you refer to are being formed ad hoc from preconceptions that are buried deep within your machine. When PepperFritz corrected your perception of his comments, that's all he did; highlight your subjective remark, which flags to you that there is an underlying problem for you to address. He hasn't helped you get rid of anything! That's for you to do through self-observation and study.

Perhaps you’re well aware of this already, in which case I offer this as a clarification.

I encourage y’all to re-read Atreides' posts. Humility is essential!

 

[Aiming]

Hi artreides:

Your first post made me blush and I was feeling ashamed of being in the focus.
I felt threatenend and attacked (although you did not threaten and attack me, but simply pointed out where I was wrong). I thought it unjustified because I thought I had made it clear already that: I know I was wrong, so why make me feel ashamed of it now?
> self-pity (thanks Nathan, you're right) and seeing the cause in you, not me.
I then tried to make it clear that I'm aware where I went wrong, but as it seems, these were just words.
One of my issues has always been that I'm way too theoretical and having problems to put 'what I know' (=what I think I know) into action.

You're saying all I've done is nothing but unconsciously reacting, yes?
I've re-read my posts and I agree with you. (Actually I needed quite some time to figure out how I am to handle it all. My intial reactions were just more of mere mechanicalness. Then I went blank. Then again all different types of programs came up as to how I should react, like for example, to make some humorous remarks in order to make you, artreides, like me some more and not be so hard on me anymore, and pointing out to you that I'm no 'brother' who testifies, but a 'sister', so that my gender would change your 'tone' towards me. Then, finally, I told myself to start thinking, which I did. As for what the result is worth, I don't know, but I guess I'll know soon.)
By the way, how come you've made those religious hints?
Does my use of the English language sound so bloated? (It's not my native language, so it could be that I need to improve my expression.)
Or were you referring to a priest giving a sermon, ie. pointing out my words were empty and like 'heated-up air' (=nothing behind it) ?


Hi Nathan!

You're right about the self-pity program. As I mentioned above, I felt threatened by artreides' focus on me and it really hit me right into my face (although theoretically I knew this would very possibly occur pretty soon, given that I'm new here).
To give some background (in case it's inadequate, pls let me know):
I had to overcome a program to even post anything here on the forum. (I never was somebody who identified with any kind of forum, posting or chatting or anything like that. Neither did I ever belong to any kind of group or movement, may it be political, religious or 'just-because-we-share-a-common-passion-group'.) To get back to the point, this program was running every time when I thought about participating here, always telling me 'What could you possibly contribute that would be of value to them. They're way ahead of you.'

Now, as for me displaying a touch of self-indulgence (I looked up the word, cuz I didn't know what it means):
[from Webster's New World:Basic Dictionary of American English]
self-indulgence/self-indulgent: "the act of giving / giving in to one's own wishes, feelings, or whims; without self-control"
whim: " a sudden thought or wish to do sth, without any particular reason"
>Based on these definitions, well, yes, you're having a point there, Nathan.
Thinking about it more thoroughly, I can give some background to this reaction of mine (again, in case it's not adequate, pls let me know):

I've assumed a position I do not have. I wrote as if I knew anything, while obviously I don't. I've assumed the position of somebody who's been here for a long time, thinking my response could possibly be [of] real contribution. There's definitely a big self-importance program going on. I hereby apologize.

I posted my comment on 'what happens if the one with the real I among us is being exposed' pretty impulsively. While writing it, I even figured 'Hey, you better don't, you know to act impulsively here on the forum is not contributing, but mere shouting out your opinion'. Still, I posted it. (And that's why I labeled it as a self-importance program, because I posted it, although I knew it was impulsive and nothing but my personal opinion, ie. considering my opinion as worthwhile.) It was around 1 or 2 am. Next morning I woke up feeling ashamed of having posted it. Then I went to the computer and read artreides' post, who put me into focus. This, to me, only confirmed my good reason to feel ashamed and I suddenly feared 'now they're after me, exposing me as inexperienced and backwards and not fit to be here, among them'.
So, to conclude:
I'm feeling ashamed to make mistakes (which surely is just another program). I'm feeling inferior and ashamed, because I've only just begun and you all are so advanced (just another program).
>Well, I am well behind you, but feeling inferior won't get me anywhere. edit#2: And, after all, this is not a competition.
Artreides' posts have triggered in me feelings of being pointed out unjustified (< this sounds as if it's grammatically incorrect),
because I already had the program 'ashamed of & feeling inferior for not being advanced enough to be here' running. Thus I already felt I'd done sth wrong and that one was hard on me already (oooh, poor me!). Then in came artreides' post, and with it only the confirmation plus it felt like a second blow. (first from me, second from him)
As well as the pretty uncomfortable feeling of being looked at and analyzed very closely.

So self-indulgent defined as giving in to one's own wishes, feelings, or whims, without self-control could be ascribed to me, if a program contains, by definition, own wishes, feelings and whims. Which it does. As for the part saying 'without self-control', I don't know. I had my reasons to act, ie. react the way I did. They were, however, not objective. So it is 'without self-control' in the sense that I was reacting purely mechanical, the programs running on full speed and I was not aware of them. imho


Thanks Artreides and Nathan for mirroring me! (thanks also, for correcting my grammatical mistake in the above quote, Nathan!)
I'm welcoming corrections. Pls feel free to point out anything that strikes you as wrong.


edit: And I think, I was showing a general self-importance program, too, because I felt offended by what artreides wrote.
(edit for identifying information)

 

[atreides]

Thanks Artreides and Nathan for mirroring me! (thanks also, for correcting my grammatical mistake in the above quote, Nathan!)
I'm welcoming corrections. Pls feel free to point out anything that strikes you as wrong.

Exit stage left much? Much too much. This isn't a mirror, this is just me being honest. A real mirror would most likely obliterate you.

I won't quote through your whole post, but simply say: Always you, you you you, you are ashamed, you are inferior. Even in thinking of others you think of them only in respect to you, in proximity to you, how they affect you. Your programs this, and your programs that. You are obsessed with your own self-observation, like Narcissus watching his reflection. You are mistaking a tree for the forest, that is, self-observation and dealing with programs as the Work en total. Furthermore, you idolize people, because you seem to want to be idolized, so you do unto others etc. You are only as inferior as you make yourself, you look around and see giants, but only because you want to be a giant. Very selfish.

*wanders off to listen to The Little Mermaid soundtrack* <-- GIANT EFFING HINT (Added by AACS, the Atreides' Ambiguity Correction Society as a public service.)

 

[Aiming]

Thanks for your honesty, Atreides. Didn't see the narcissist in me.