Reflections on M’adventures – whoiswho - building a trust
CarpeDiem said:
Nothing is as it seems.
Acquiring false knowledge is worse than not acquiring knowledge at all.
False knowledge in the Work may be deadly
But what to do if reading Gurdjieff / Mouravieff is not enough in practical terms? Whom to trust in Work?
Carpe,
Thank you for posting this: for many reasons. I have gone through the very same thing MANY times while interacting here. It isn't easy to kill that particular monster, the one that wants the answers, the one that wants the answers that will facilitate a salve, or allay that alarming fear, to put it to sleep so that things will feel better.
Many people in this thread have eloquently expressed this, and have done so in other, previous threads (on many subjects), enough so that I was able in crucial times to hold on to a mere speck of understanding, a grain of sand in a personal/interface to the World tornado, that despite so many other pressures, I felt held the only true hope of unraveling why the tornado exists in the first place. It is like this for me, and I think I see the same thing in what you say.
Don't despair. You're interactions here have effects that
you might not even be aware of.
Case in point:
CarpeDiem said:
When I read Azur’s post with advice to SAO to do stalking
Azur said:
But I have a question for you SAO: why were you frustrated and sick by this exchange? Was there something bothering you that needed to be resolved? The resolution of the "thing" has indicators that need to be stalked. Has something tickled your emotional center?
It seems that this minor drama has or could be rather a good thing all in all. If everyone could recall their impressions at every instance (as the posts rolled in and changed aspects), it could be beneficial to see how perception (possibly constraining the full set of possibilities) and programs work hand in hand, on an individual basis.
And it bears examining WHY so many people willingly "paid" energy in seeing where this would go. What was at stake? The initial setup certainly held a well crafted hook, i.e. the "carrot".
What was gained, and what was lost by this series of posts, and by whom? (And here I mean those directly involved and more importantly, the OTHERS, as observers).
I understood it one-way: senior member (like QFG) is giving a generous advice in Work to listen to and follow.
What happened next, Azur’s reply to SAO seemed to me a complete appeasement and in direct emotional contradiction to his/her previous post and logically (to me) I had a gut feeling that his/her previous post / advice in Work should be disregarded (if I will ever find myself in the same/similar situation as SAO I would not follow that advice).
I'll break this down, and give you "inside" information, i.e. what I was thinking, as to what this post was really about.
I had read SAO's post (and having read his posts over the years) was surprised (and slightly alarmed) about what he had written concerning his "state of mind", or rather, and this is the important part: what I
thought he was saying about his state of mind. I "read" it a certain way, continued with the assumption and asked him to "have a look" to see if this was the case. (Factor: He isn't a newbie to the Work, and I have grown to respect his responses, a lot of what he posts has personal resonance. But even then, I never let that sway me: content, and the weighing of such is the important part.)
His response clearly indicated that I had read it wrong, and that was that. Except for these very important other aspects: when something is stirred within that goads me to write, a long distillation process occurs. Not so much for proper grammar or any such, but the internal analysis of what it is that stirred me to respond, what it is that I feel/think should be communicated, why the communication should take place and what it
really is that I'm really doing by doing so. I've probably deleted or abandoned 80% or more of the posts I was going to make since signing on here because of the understanding that came out of this process (posting was no longer necessary). Anything that makes it through, feels "right" or at least clear. The thing is, at any one point, although it may look like advice is being given, it may actually be the reverse! When you fully, as you are, think you reach "clarity" and post, it is absolutely fantastic when the response shows you something that you HADN'T seen yourself. (And here I mean in your assessment of the situation).
There are three things here that were important when I finally posted (some of these postmortem, no pun intended):
1) Was my assessment correct?
2) Why I was alarmed that SOA (under my bad read) might feel the way I thought he/she was about the M'adventures posts?
3) Why did I put a particular member "on the spot"?
On 1), the response laid that to rest. Result? Data for understanding how to further calibrate my "reading" instrument. (It may be I wasn't bringing to bear full discernment here, lulled into a false sense of previous "good" content by "automatic previous good content rating", and didn't really look further than the words, as I usually do.)
On 2), This speaks directly to what you are saying in this thread. I was dismayed (before knowing it was a false assessment, a mis-read on my part), that such a person, not only familiar with the material, and working it (as so many threads and posts of a revelatory nature indicated), would be so "duped". (Again, the response cleared up my bad assessment). Why was this important that someone (apparently) stalking so well, and seemingly falling prey to such an obvious display of BS? Because it is of utmost importance to me that as many as possible succeed here. Even if I never achieve it personally, I harbor a wish, a hope, whatever you want to call it, that someone can do it. I will verily help anyone who attempts, regardless of whether I can or not. I will die happy if I can help someone else over that last rung in the ladder, in whatever form it takes. This was my concern. (And this actually explains a lot of my "sharp tongued" posts over the years, it's another program, verily.)
On 3), the conciliatory tone in my response, realizing (happily) that my read was wrong, was because even though it seemed I was "presenting" a mirror, I was really asking for one myself [Edit: Was I gushing because SOA didn't "tear me a new one". No. That would have been easier and welcomed because there would have something to work on that was pointed out. The reason is feeling bad for "poking" someone over a bad read. I'm grateful SOA took it in good stride.) And SOA obliged, impeccably. As many others here have obliged in the past. He/she actually evaluated what I said, had a look within, and returned valuable feedback. It is of utmost importance to have such an honest network of willing people: understanding isn't cut and dried, discordance rules. There is perseverance here, despite that, and
because of the understanding of it.
And one of the most important things you may not know, Carpe, is that you spotted something in my response. Now you know why. Had that scenario (as explicated in 2)) occurred to you when you read it? It's almost impossible to fully understand the total possibilities, but to appreciate their existence goes a long way. (others have said this exact same thing in this thread, in other words).
The other thing that you could possibly not know of, and that I will share here is this: you've assumed that I was a senior member of QFS, and I can say that I'm not such. I had applied 3 years ago, while in a frenzied discovery (and related reading binge and finally drinking from a fountain that bore explanations), and during the process realized something very important: at that time I was actually running programs (while in knowledge of what that meant) that sought a refuge and secondly, personal validation. When I realized this and disengaged, I repaired to address this. The first was fairly easy, as it was something I have always felt was an escape (even before finding the concepts of the Work). The second, I discovered was so deeply rooted, and having multiple reasons from circumstance and previous life experiences, that it looked like an interminable rabbit hole. This has been, for me, identified as a "marker" program that has engendered most of the other programs (but certainly not all).
If you had not shared your thoughts here, I would not have known to what extent I had been successful in killing that second program. Can you see how valuable, even if you cannot always see it firsthand, your involvement in a network can bear fruit?
Thank you, BTW.
Cheers.
