Self-Observation, Inner Talking & Work Instrument

Hi Team,

Just wondering if someone can point me in the right direction please?

I seem to remember reading a discussion where Laura describes physical symptoms of 'heating and cooling' or more specifically- perceived elevated temperature combined with sensations of extreme cold in the pit of the stomach?

I'm sure it was on the forum somewhere, either in reference to the Moving or Magnetic Centres but I can't seem to find it....:nuts:

Any assistance much appreciated.

Thanks

J


I think Laura talked about that in The Wave. But there is this thread where Laura writes a post that talks about the process of fusion, and that "real warmth" is produced by the inner friction:

Depression As A Stepping Stone (to Soul Growth)
 
I think Laura talked about that in The Wave. But there is this thread where Laura writes a post that talks about the process of fusion, and that "real warmth" is produced by the inner friction:

Depression As A Stepping Stone (to Soul Growth)


Thanks for the reply T.C, the Depression thread happened to be very relatable.

Yes I was starting to wonder if it might not have been Amazing Grace or The Wave?

Must be time time to read them again :-)

Cheers

J
 
Among the raw G and few others who seem to offer written forms of his vibe, like M and O, I enjoy Nicoll's commentaries which kicked this off. I'm fascinated with this thread but won't beef up the volume of it now and be direct - I'm curious if anyone has experience working with a master like Sanford Meisner doing basic repetition with a partner before a group, perhaps even capturing the live interaction on film with a couple of cameras. In reflection over many years of my quest, my wandering since childhood, I've used art, therapy and reality interactively to hone in on something that seems to be the foundation beneath it all.
 
But I'm not sure what Gurdjieff means when he says "...but imagine only, that this is already present in you." He seems to be referring to an understanding ridden of all doubt what must be done and how - but I just cannot conceive how this is possible, unless it refers to smaller aims.

It’s been 17 years since this post, water has run under bridges, I’ll just add my block to the castle (making my contribution).

First of all, thanks for everything.

The way I perceived it is in connection to Visualization and setting the Intention/the Direction. From my understanding, setting the intention is a way to use the left brain hemisphere properly in order to give ourselves a direction, while letting the creative force of the right brain hemisphere free to modulate the present, according to "DCM’s will". I understand the « Imagine only » as meaning that it is the first task = ‘feeling it’ in the present ; and that at the same time 'imagining' doesn’t mean that we master it, yet. So let’s not take it as accomplished either.

(This makes me think about The Thinking Errors Characteristic Of The Criminal :
« 36. Super Optimism : […] Once this decision is made the criminal will believe that change has already accrued. »)

So the next step is to practice and set ourselves in motion.

I refer here, notably, to this excerpt from the wave chap.23, present in the book Life Is Religion :
Laura Knight-Jadczyk, The Wave, Chapter 23 (excerpt)

What is wrong with efforts to send love and light, the achieving of the goals of world peace or personal prosperity? What is wrong with wanting a return to God, or higher consciousness or any of the touted experiences that are guaranteed to initiate a person to whatever they desire? The problem is anticipation. When you seek any of these things by holding the thoughts in the left-brain in anticipation of making it real, you are raping the maiden of the well.

What if you are just trying to believe it is now? Belief is a function of the left brain; it blocks the manifestation of creativity because the creative right brain is also the empirical half of the brain that observes the dichotomy between the belief and the reality.

Desire is anticipation. Anticipation is read by the right brain as in the future, therefore not right now, and the right brain can only create now. When we desire, we have a future object in mind. The right brain only knows now.

If we desire to love God, we have a concept (left brain) of the future goal of loving God. It can’t exist now. Therefore we experience struggle to constantly love God, against the ongoing now of not loving God.

If we desire to win the lottery, and produce in the left brain future image of money flowing into our life, it isn’t now. So now continues moneyless.

If we desire happiness, and create the concept in the left brain, we have future happiness in mind. And the right brain reads it as unhappiness now, and this can manifest in thousands of unhappy experiences.

By the same token, if we send love and light to any directed recipient, we are holding a concept of future fixing that signals a state of brokenness now to our right brain, and the repercussions are felt in our life. In a larger sense, we may be signaling the collective right brain that a future state of peace is desired, and therefore, now is not peaceful. And so the right brain creates now. The perception of linear time constantly projects rewards into the future, blocking access to the present, like a donkey chasing a carrot for all eternity.

Q: (L) If someone wanted to win the lottery, for example, what would be the correct approach? What should they do, or be, or think, or say?
A: Completely pure intent, i.e., open. Nonanticipatory.
Q: (L) Anticipation constricts the channels of creativity?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) A person has to be completely uncaring whether they get it or not, so to speak?
A: Happy-go-lucky attitude helps.
Q: (L) So, worry, tension, anticipation, and attachment to the idea, we constricts the flow?
A: Yes.

But you noticed, I hope, that intent is not considered to be anticipation or desire. The words themselves may provide a clue.

Anticipate: ante—before + capare—to take. To look forward to; to expect; to make happen earlier, precipitate; to foresee and perform in advance, etc.

We see clearly the connection between anticipation and time.

Intent: firmly directed or fixed; having the mind or attention firmly directed or fixed; engrossed; strongly resolved; a purpose or objective; will and determination at the time of performing an act.

Do we see a subtle difference? Even if it is somewhat semantically, it is sufficient to make us think about how to deal with our creative potential.

Of course, we see that completely pure intent is a pretty tall order. Thus we see that the key becomes acting now with intent, but no imaginary anticipation for the future. A goal, with applied will of action, which necessitates left brain conscious preparing and planning, via the heightened awareness of the right brain, which deals directly with the present conditions, will result in an opening of life changing creative potential.

Q: (L) Okay, we’ve been talking earlier this evening about intent, and of course, our own experiences with intent have really been pretty phenomenal. We’ve come to some kind of an idea that intent, when confirmed repeatedly, actually builds force. Is this a correct concept, and is there anything that you can add to it?
A: Only until anticipation muddies the picture … tricky one, huh?
Q: (L) Is anticipation the act of assuming you know how something is going to happen?
A: Follows realization, generally, and unfortunately for you, on 3rd density. You see, once anticipation enters the picture, the intent can no longer be STO.
Q: (L) Anticipation is desire for something for self. Is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Okay, so it’s okay to intend something, or to think in an intentional way, or to hope in an intentional way, for something that is to serve another …
A: And that brings realization. But, realization creates anticipation.
Q: (L) Well, how do we navigate this razor? I mean, this is like walking on a razor’s edge. To control your mind to not anticipate, and yet, deal with realization, and yet, still maintain hope …
A: Mental exercises of denial, balanced with pure faith of a nonprejudicial kind.
Q: (L) Okay, so, in other words, to just accept what is at the moment, appreciate it as it is at the moment, and have faith that the universe and things will happen the way they are supposed to happen, without placing any expectation on how that will be, and keep on working?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) We have discussed a lot of concepts about shaping the future. In our discussions, we have hypothesized that it is something like an intentional act of shaping something good, but without defining the moment of measurement. In other words, adding energy to it by intent, but not deciding where, when or how the moment of measurement occurs. Like a quantum jump: you know it is statistically likely, but not definite, so you cannot expect it, but you observe so that you can notice when it occurs on it’s own, and in it’s own way.
A: Yes. Avoiding anticipation. That is the key to shaping the future … When it hits you, it stops.
Q: (L) When what hits you? The fact that it’s happening? That you are doing it?
A: Yes unless you cancel out all anticipation.
Q: (L) Well, this is very tricky.
A: Ah? We have doubts … And yes, you create your own reality!
Q: (L) Well, but you have also said that anticipation messes things up, and so I don’t want to have any anticipation.
A: Anticipation is not creating one’s own reality.

If non-anticipation opens the door to the creativity of the universe, what closes the door to negative occurrences? Can it be that we have a clue here as well?

Just remember that anticipation is the “mother of preparation”, and defense.

Lesson number 1: always expect attack.
Lesson number 2: know the modes of same.
Lesson number 3: know how to counteract same.

When you are under attack, expect the unexpected, if it is going to cause problems … But, if you expect it, you learn how to “head it off”, thus neutralizing it. This is called vigilance, which is rooted in knowledge. Knowledge protects. (The Cassiopaeans)

So, it seems that the answer to this part of the problem is that when we are connected to the Cosmos via the right brain, and are not blocking the ability of our Cosmic Connection by limiting the forces with boundary forming imagination or images or illusory concepts, we allow the perfect manifestation of our own frequency resonance to occur. By the same token, when necessary, we can close the door to manipulation of our minds by constantly running a sort of computer scan of possible breaches of our security system in the left brain. We must marry the left brain kingship of the material world to the right brain queen of the inner realm.

Yet, it was only when Parzival rejected all of the advice, the exhortations, when he quit seeking to be a great knight on a sacred quest to save the world; only when he rejected God as the pure and good all-father that … it found him.

What is the wasteland? That we cannot accept the world and all within it, including ourselves, as being perfectly natural and perfect just the way it is — with all the good and evil it contains as part of the natural and necessary balance — the whole of existence is natural and as it should be at every moment. When you accept that all is perfect, when you cease holding God hostage by usurping the power of the right brain feminine principle with the images in your left brain, then the world will be perfect and fertile and you will heal the wound of the wasteland in your own heart.

If only we can act spontaneously, without being programmed into someone else’s belief system, we can ask the real question of ourselves; ask with no preconceived notion of what the answer will be; ask with no anticipation.

Then, miraculously, for one moment the vessel of the Grail is empty … and in the next it is filled with the wonder and glory of all and everything.

The Spirit of the Valley never dies. It is called the Mystic Female. The Door of the Mystic Female is the root of Heaven and Earth. (Lao Tzu)

And the Mystic Female is the infinite Sea of potential. It is God in the not aspect that only can be when expectations, anticipations, assumptions and obsessions are completely left at the door.

Negative existence is the silence behind the sound, the blank canvas beneath the painting, the darkness into which light shines. Emptiness is the stillness against which time moves. Negative existence enables a man to be what he is. It is the mirror of mirrors. Non-anticipation is noninterference, and allows the most perfect reflection of creation. (Lao Tzu)

This next excerpt you cited from Henry goes this way.
They are lies until we develop the Will that will realize our potential to BE.
So when Gurdjieff said we should imagine that it is already present in us, he seems to be suggesting that it IS established somewhere (as in, the higher centers are fully functional) and that this more or less constant imagination can in a sense be used as a driving/steering force towards actualising it.
You stated it.
 
The way I perceived it is in connection to Visualization and setting the Intention/the Direction. From my understanding, setting the intention is a way to use the left brain hemisphere properly in order to give ourselves a direction, while letting the creative force of the right brain hemisphere free to modulate the present, according to "DCM’s will". I understand the « Imagine only » as meaning that it is the first task = ‘feeling it’ in the present ; and that at the same time 'imagining' doesn’t mean that we master it, yet. So let’s not take it as accomplished either.
From the Gurdjieff's Contemplative Exercises thread, this excerpt deepens the idea on the use of imagination :

whitecoast said:
Chapter Eight is about what was called the First Assisting Exercise in the fifth talk of the Third Series, dated to 1930.

In this talk, after Gurdjieff makes positive reference to one's human capacity for "self-deceptive imaginativeness" to inculcate "in his subconsciousness some reasonable indication grasped by his ordinary consciousness and not contradictory to his instinct." Azize seems to tie this role that imaginative visualization may play in developing an actual sensitivity to something real and not at all imaginative to one of Gurdjieff's motivations for withholding a number of these types of exercises: because very often imagination is uncontrolled and subject to all kinds of self-deception and self-hypnosis and can lead people into deeper blink alleys than their ordinary sleep.

For the correct understanding of the significance of this first assisting exercise, it is first of all necessary to know that when a normal man, that is, a man who already has his real I, his will, and all the other properties of a real man, pronounces aloud or to himself the words " I am," then there always proceeds in him, in his, as it is called, "solar plexus," a so to say "reverberation," that is, something like a vibration, a feeling, or something of the sort.
This kind of reverberation can proceed also in other parts of his body in general, but only on the condition that, when pronouncing these words, his attention is intentionally concentrated on them.

If the ordinary man, not having as yet in himself data for the natural reverberation but knowing of the existence of this fact, will, with conscious striving for the formation in himself of the genuine data which should be in the common presence of a real man, correctly and frequently pronounce these same and for him as yet empty words, and will imagine that this same reverberation proceeds in him, he may thereby ultimately through frequent repetition gradually acquire in himself a so to say theoretical "beginning" for the possibility of a real practical forming in himself of these data.
He who is exercising himself with this must at the beginning, when pronouncing the words "I am," imagine that this same reverberation is already proceeding in his solar plexus.
[Emphasis mine]
 
Has anyone ever tried to map out what we know of the players in the CONINTELPRO field (both side of the field, the truthseekers and the obfuscators)? Anyone who is relatively new to the realization that there's something not quite right would have a difficult time discerning where to place their trust without doing a lot of research. Over the past few years, I've been building my knowledge base with regards to who is really trying to reveal the truth and who is actively trying to hide it, and the recent ATS exchange really presses this point home.

I'm slowly attempting to compile a graph of relationships in the truthseeker field in an attempt to learn more about where the weak links might lie, based on a set of criteria showing how much I trust the source of information. As a baseline, I've been using the SoTT/Cassiopaea group as the most reliable since the message seems to have resonated the most with me (particularly the Wave and Adventures series, which is what brought me back to the site in the first place after following a link from a John Kaminski article on Rense a year or two back), and the PTB as the least reliable. Everybody else falls somewhere in between.

The data wouldn't set out to prove anything...just show the relationships between the groups/individuals in the "great game".

If anybody has done similar research, I'd be interested in seeing some of it. I haven't progressed very far as of yet, and I expect that this will be a very significant undertaking, but could prove valuable to anyone having their eyes opened for the first time as a reference point for their own research.

How to counteract professional rhetoric attacks?

Joda, you might want to read the thread in "esoterica > the work > self-observation" especially the part about "negative emotions."

Yes, we have learned a LOT about these thing - and we learned it the hard way.

The best thing to do in the beginning, until you are strong and well-trained, is to just simply have your own website where you publish what you like, and there is no possibility of anyone else posting COINTELPRO backed responses. Until you are seasoned, you must pick your battles carefully and, if possible, pick the venue. Only after you have attracted others who think like you do, who can back you up and support you, can you begin to expand.

There are many things that can be said about self-observation and what it is and what it is not. The whole of the Work starts from a man beginning to observe himself. Self-observation is a means of self-change. Serious and continuous self-observation, if done aright, leads to definite inner changes in a man.

Let us, first of all, consider self-observation in connection with a mistake often made about it. The mistake is the confusing of self-observation with knowing. To know and to observe are not the same thing. Speaking superficially, you may know you are sitting in a chair in your room, but can you say that you are actually observing it? Speaking more deeply, you may know you are in a negative state, but that does not mean that you are observing it.

A person in the Work said to me that he disliked somebody intensely. I said: "Try to observe it." He replied: "Why should I observe it? I don't need to. I know it already." In such a case, the person is confusing knowing with observing; that is, he does not understand what self-observation is. Moreover he has not grasped that self-observation, which is active, is a means of self-change, whereas merely knowing, which is passive, is not. Knowing is not an act of attention. Self-observation is an act of attention directed inwards - to what is going on in you. The attention must be active; that is, directed. In the case of a person you dislike, you notice what thoughts crowd into your mind, the chorus of voices speaking in you, what they are saying, what unpleasant emotions surge up, and so on. You notice also that you are treating the person you dislike very badly inside. Nothing is too bad to think of him or feel about him. But to see all this requires directed attention, not passive attention. The attention comes from the observing side, whereas the thoughts and emotions belong to the observed side in your-self. This is dividing yourself into two. There is a saying: "A man is first one, then two, and the one." The observing side, or Observing "I", stands interior to, or above, the observed side, but its power of independent consciousness varies, because it may be submerged at any moment. Then you are completely identified with the negative state. You do not observe the state but you are the state. You can then say that you know you are negative, but that is not to observe it. If the Observing "I" is supported by other 'I's which value the Work and recall it and wish to become more conscious, then it is not so easily submerged by the flood of negative things. It is then helped by - and is a part of - Deputy Steward. All this is quite different from merely knowing one is negative. Passive knowing can be said to be mechanical in contrast to self-observation which is a conscious act and cannot become mechanical. Mechanical self-observation has nothing to do with Work self-observation.

People not only confused knowing with the continuous act of self-observation but they mistake thinking for observing. To think is quite different from observing oneself. A man may think about himself all day and never observe himself once. The observation of one's thoughts is not the same as thinking. It should be clear now that knowing and thinking are not the same as observation.

The question is often asked: "What must I observe?" First, the Work explains carefully what you must begin to observe. But later a man must attain to fuller observation of himself - for a whole day, or a week - and see himself as an outside person. He must think what he would think if he met himself. He would, of course, cordially dislike this man who is himself. A man must observe everything in himself and always as if it were not him-self but IT. This means that he must say: "What is IT doing?" not "What am I doing?" He then sees now these thoughts going on in him, now these emotions, now these private plays and inventions, and so on, passing through him; one after the other. Next moment, of course, he goes to sleep again and takes part in them all. That is, he acts in the play he has composed and thinks it is real. He thinks he is the part he invented.

Let us consider this viewpoint further. A man must be able to say: "This is not me" to all his set pieces and his songs, to all the performances going on in him, to all the voices that he takes as his own. You know how sometimes just before going to sleep at night, you hear loud voices in your head. These are 'I's speaking. During the day, they are speaking all the time, only you take them as 'I', as yourself. But just before sleep, a separation takes place naturally, for connections are being broken between centres and between 'I's in order that sleep may be possible. Two or more 'I's can keep you from sleeping. So you hear them, as it were, as voices talking, just for a moment, because they are being separated by natural processes from you.

Inner separation means the power of not merely saying: "This is not I", but ultimately of actually perceiving it for oneself - perceiving that it is true, that "this is not I", not merely thinking it is so or trying to persuade oneself it is, or saying this is what the Work says.

When you are in an unpleasant state, if you observe yourself over some considerable time, you will notice that all sorts of different groups of unpleasant 'I's try to deal with it in succession and make something out of it. This is because negative 'I's live by being negative. Their life consists in negative thinking or negative feeling - that is, in providing you with unpleasant thoughts and feelings. It is their delight to do so for it is their life. In the Work, the enjoyment of negative states must be observed sincerely, especially the secret enjoyment of them. The reason is that if a man enjoys being negative, in whatever forms, and they are legion - he can never separate from them. You cannot separate yourself from what you have a secret affection for. The case actually is that you identify with negative 'I's through secret affection and so feel their enjoyment, for whatever you identify with you become. A man in himself is constantly transforming himself into different 'I's. He has nothing permanent, but by separation he can make something permanent. The line of separation is between what likes and what hates the Work.

Now we speak once more of observing talking. All rules are about talking, practically speaking, and how to deal with wrong talking. It is necessary to observe inner talking and from where it is coming. Wrong inner talking is the breeding-ground not only of many future unpleasant states but also of wrong outer talking. You know that there is in the Work what is called the practise of inner silence. The practise and meaning of inner silence is like this: first, it must be about something quite distinct and definite; and second, it is like not touching it. That is, you cannot practise inner silence in any vague general way, save perhaps as an experiment for a time. But you can practise it rigidly in regard to some distinct and definite thing, something you know and see quite clearly. Someone once asked: "Is practising inner silence the same as not letting something come into your mind?" The answer is no. It is not the same. What you are practising inner silence about is already in the mind and you must be aware of it, but you must not touch it with your inner speech, your inner tongue. Your outer literal tongue likes to touch sore places, as when a tooth hurts. So does your inner tongue. But if it does, the sore thing in your mind flows into your inner speech and unwraps itself as inner talking in every direction. You have noticed of course that inner talking always goes on in negative states and that it coins many unpleasant phrases, which suddenly find expression in outer talking, perhaps long after. In the Work we are told that it is necessary to be careful about wrong outer talking at first, and, later on, about wrong inner talking. Actually, wrong outer talking is mostly due to wrong inner talking. Wrong inner talking, particularly venomous and evil inner talking, and so on, makes a mess within, like excrement. They are all different forms of lying and this is why they have such strength and persistence. Lies are always more powerful than truth because they can hurt. If you observe wrong inner talking you will notice it is only half-truths, or truths connected in the wrong order, or with something added or left out. In other words, it is simply lying to oneself. If you say: "Is this quite true?" it may stop it, but it will find another set of lies. Eventually you must dislike it. If you enjoy it, you will never lessen its power. It is not enough to dislike liking it: you must dislike it.

All this belongs to the purification of the emotional life. Mechanically we only like ourselves, and so we dislike or hate those who do not like us. A development of being is not possible, and quite obviously so, unless the emotions cease to have only this basis of self-liking. External considering, in the Work, is putting oneself in the position of others. This is referred to in the Gospels:


This is one of the definite formulations in the Gospels of what in the Work is called External Considering. But a man must think very deeply what it says and perceive internally what it means, because it has an outer and inner meaning. If you say: "I always think of others," then observe it. It is probably a buffer. You do not notice perhaps that you say things, or you write things, which, if you received, you would not tolerate for a moment. This is one very interesting form of self-observation and it includes observing "inner talking". In yourself everyone else is helpless. You can, as it were, drag a person into the cave of yourself and do what you like with her or him. You may be polite naturally, but in the Work, which is all about purifying or organising the inner life, it is not enough. It is how you behave internally and invisibly to one another that really counts. This is very difficult to understand. You may think you know this already. But to understand - even to understand it - takes many years of work. When the inner corresponds with the outer and when the outer obeys the inner, then a man possesses a "second body". As we are, our outer life does not correspond with our inner life, and our outer life controls our inner. The inner grows by seeing the good of something. Recently here we were talking of what the saint, Cassian, says about a man being able to do the same thing for different reasons. A man may act from fear - fear of law, fear of reputation, fear of opinion. Then he acts from outside. Or he may act from ambition - and many other similar forms of self-interest. Or he may act from good - from seeing the good of acting so. This develops the internal man. Now all this can be a subject of self-observation. But even the first stages of self-observation have a certain effect. They let in rays of light into the darkness of our psychic life. It is the psychic life we have to think of in the Work. All the instructions of the Work are about one's psychic life, which is in chaos. In this way, self-observation becomes deeper, and the valuation of the Work becomes more and more internal. So the Work begins to act on Essence - on what is the real part of man.

Work on oneself is always the same. It does not matter where you are. You are always in contact with the Work if your inner attitude to it is right. If your inner attitude is right, the Work will teach you about what work on yourself means. If your inner attitude is wrong, it cannot, because you block the way. In all self-observation, if it is to become full self-observation, you must observe IT. That is, you must see all your reactions to life and circumstances as IT in you and not as 'I'. If you say 'I', then nothing can happen. The saying of 'I', the feeling of 'I', makes it impossible to change. If to every negative state you say 'I', then you cannot escape it. At first a man takes himself as one and says 'I' to all that happens in his psychic life. But in order to change he must become two. Then, later on, he may become one - a unity. The instrument of self-observation is like a knife that cuts us away from what is not us. If you begin to see what it means to say: "This is not 'I'", then you begin to use this instrument.

When you can really say: "What is IT doing?" instead of "What am I doing?" you begin to understand the Work. The Work is to make a new set of reactions or rather new ways of taking things. As long as you take ordinary things in a new way you begin to change. You cannot remain the same - and change. If you are always the same it means that you always react to life in the same way. You insist on your pound of flesh. The idea of change is not to be the same. The idea of the Work is to change oneself. The idea of self-observation is to separate from what one was by not going with what one observes. In this way self-observation is a means of self-change.


* * *

When you have begun to form in yourself the powerful mental instrument of this Work, you will find that wherever you turn it, you will catch new meanings. The Work forms in us a new instrument of reception, a new apparatus for receiving impressions, both from outside and from inside. The Work lies in parts that have to be joined together by means of understanding. Each part of the Work, each separate idea, each bit of the teaching, is exactly like the parts of, say, a radio-machine. The parts of a radio are, let us say, lying on a table and you can see them. If you know enough, if you understand what they are, you can put them together and then the instrument begins to work and you hear all sorts of invisible things that otherwise you could not hear. In the case of the Work, each part is not something physical, an outer object lying on a table, but is psychical - an idea, a thought, a direction, a formulation, a diagram, and so on. If all these parts fitted together by understanding, and valuation, the Work forms a new and organised apparatus in you. That is, you are newly organised. You have a new psychic organism in you. The Work is actually a whole and complete organism which is given little by little, part by part, but all these parts are parts of a true whole. If the Work is thus formed in you, you have a new thing, a new organised instrument in you. Even a single part of the Work, if taken in with valuation and understanding, will begin to work a change in you because it will transmit new influences. But the whole of the Work must be formed in a man. This can be thought of as another body - another organised thing in man - if the man lives the Work. Then it will control the man he was.

[Maurice Nicoll, Commentaries, pp. 213-217, Vol. 1]

I am new. I have so much to say, but reading this, and knowing what I know or think I know ;), compels me to side on that of brevity.

I would actually enjoy a DM with @Laura. Is that possible before I go further with this?

Laura's response to the original post from 2006, (that post not is not the reason I joined, her response to it was :).). I felt something. Something virtuous in her post. Which led to the pinned post here in this thread, which is full of incredibly well thought out ideas that I could philosophize upon for a lifetime.

Having said that, I would like to focus on what the Work is and can it be compatible in your eyes to the aesthetic orthodox values and virtues that are divinely infused within this reality. I believe these values and virtues transcend everything, e.g, cultures, geography, ethnicity, history, and time. To me, they are infused within everything but also beyond everything. I believe the Truth is not Pantheism, yet it might be closer to Panentheism. However, those two can be understand with a two-dimensional picture, when the Truth is far higher than just 2D haha.

Also, theosis seems to coincide with the idea of our individual consciousness getting closer to God's consciousness, which if focused on the present moment, while not just being attentive to this moment, but observing it with all your focus, and that focus must be virtuous in thought, word, and deed. Aristotle's Eudaimonia, Arete, and much more explain this well. I'll stop there with the latter and focus more on the former.

So to me, being in the present is as if where our consciousness is closest to God's consciousness. Hence, when we then become too focused on the past, we experience regret, heart-ache, and shame; all negative emotions. And conversely, when we focus on the future in excess, we experience anxiety, worry, etc., also, negative emotions. Instead, when we are in tuned with the present moment, the only moment that exists right now to our perception of reality, then we can achieve a "flow" like experience, detailed in "Flow" as seem below.

That's certainly enough for now :).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am new. I have so much to say, but reading this, and knowing what I know or think I know ;), compels me to side on that of brevity.

I would actually enjoy a DM with @Laura. Is that possible before I go further with this?

Laura's response to the original post from 2006, (that post not is not the reason I joined, her response to it was :).). I felt something. Something virtuous in her post. Which led to the pinned post here in this thread, which is full of incredibly well thought out ideas that I could philosophize upon for a lifetime.

Having said that, I would like to focus on what the Work is and can it be compatible in your eyes to the aesthetic orthodox values and virtues that are divinely infused within this reality. I believe these values and virtues transcend everything, e.g, cultures, geography, ethnicity, history, and time. To me, they are infused within everything but also beyond everything. I believe the Truth is not Pantheism, yet it might be closer to Panentheism. However, those two can be understand with a two-dimensional picture, when the Truth is far higher than just 2D haha.

Also, theosis seems to coincide with the idea of our individual consciousness getting closer to God's consciousness, which if focused on the present moment, while not just being attentive to this moment, but observing it with all your focus, and that focus must be virtuous in thought, word, and deed. Aristotle's Eudaimonia, Arete, and much more explain this well. I'll stop there with the latter and focus more on the former.

So to me, being in the present is as if where our consciousness is closest to God's consciousness. Hence, when we then become too focused on the past, we experience regret, heart-ache, and shame; all negative emotions. And conversely, when we focus on the future in excess, we experience anxiety, worry, etc., also, negative emotions. Instead, when we are in tuned with the present moment, the only moment that exists right now to our perception of reality, then we can achieve a "flow" like experience, detailed in "Flow" as seem below.

That's certainly enough for now :).

Geezus…from the video: “Neurochemically speaking, entering a “flow” state is like smoking a blunt, snorting coke, and taking ecstasy all at the same time.” Sounds fun and definitely spiritual!

Where people come up with this crap I don’t know, but as a guy who didn’t do drugs in high school. I watched many people combine those three substances and they were in anything but a flow state.

You might be a bit outgunned here Singularity, leading with a video that essentially endorses drugs on some level is frowned upon.
 
I am new. I have so much to say, but reading this, and knowing what I know or think I know ;), compels me to side on that of brevity.
Welcome to our forum, @TheSingularity. :welcome: Could you please introduce yourself in our newbies section, so we can greet and meet you properly? You don't have to write anything personal if you don't want to, but you could tell us how you found us, whether you have read Laura's work, whether you are are reading Sott and so on. Have a look at posts written by other newbies, if you need some inspiration! Thank you!

P.S. Just a heads up that we usually don't publish pdf's of the works of authors here on our forum. They also have to earn a living and there are copyright issues and such.
 
Welcome to our forum, @TheSingularity. :welcome: Could you please introduce yourself in our newbies section, so we can greet and meet you properly? You don't have to write anything personal if you don't want to, but you could tell us how you found us, whether you have read Laura's work, whether you are are reading Sott and so on. Have a look at posts written by other newbies, if you need some inspiration! Thank you!

P.S. Just a heads up that we usually don't publish pdf's of the works of authors here on our forum. They also have to earn a living and there are copyright issues and such.
Regarding the pdf. I understand and agree. Good point. Thank you.

What about a summary or a blog site that has a summary? Or for visual learners, a short, quick animated video?

I often would copy the information from said text summaries and post them as PDFs as some sites become inaccessible at times and also the intended audience trusts a PDF from someone they trust over a random website that might have pop ups.

Regardless, I appreciate your response. I don't want to get too personal or write too much because I'd be writing for a very long time with the amount of information I have collected and what my thoughts are on any said subject.

To answer your question. I deep dived into Laura's thoughts and ideas. I studied her work and her critics. I also see how the forum is from a metaphysical, geopolitical, and philosophical standpoint. Many more I could state but let's go with 3. :). I believe 3 is a good number. 7. 1 as well. Others perhaps but the context matters.

Do you want me to post about what I believe the adversely is up to? I have a pretty good idea.

I know their tactics and their strategies. I can name which factions compete with whom and how their goals overlap.

I have ideas on how to counter all of this.

Before I go further. I will say that I disagree with one aspect of Laura's work but am intrigued nonetheless. Yet. The vast majority, over 94% is as if we are on the same vibrational frequency. Not only her, but you, and the entire forum itself.

I cannot believe I found this forum.

Honestly, I am hesitant about how to introduce myself. I have been around and my writing style lacks brevity, and it becomes circuitous instinctually.

I could certainly offer my opinion on certain controversial topics but I am well aware of how social dynamics work and just be as forward as possible. The reason being, those that are ready for what I will say, are indeed ready now. So for me to follow Robert Greene's 38th law of power would be the antithesis to being pragmatic and virtuous (honesty and transparency).

There's no reason for me to be Machiavellian as the Truth will be willed into existence by just letting it flow with what I say. It just allows for more creative thought for me.

Are you familiar with the chapter 11 of the think and grow rich (I wish Laura could mentor me on writing and publishing a book called Think and grow Wise, or Realize to be Wise (A rewrite of think of and grow rich with different ideas yet standing on the shoulders of giants).

I will end with this. This is the most important topic to me right now. The way the media influences the mass consciousness. I will quote a review of a book that is a great one despite me not agreeing with the entirety of the author's fundamental beliefs on certain subjects. I believe being able to separate the work from the worker is important. Taking what is Truth and understanding the intent of the rest but not focusing your energy on that entirely. Now of course the author's intent is important, but that is connected yet seperate from the work. Before I go on one last tangent, that I'll make a PS and hopefully not a PPS haha, here is specific quote and the website of the review. Okay. There will be a PPS. But I think you'll enjoy it.

language was a means of literally changing reality, as reality was little more than a consensus understanding of semiotics. Manipulating language, for them, manipulates meaning, which manipulates what is real—reality. Jones makes some note on this toward the end of the book. And while somewhat distant in relation, the media-entertainment complex today believes the same thing and operates using the same approach.

PS. Thank you so much for hearing me out. I would greatly appreciate your help with making this more concise with brevity and what to say and not to from this for the welcome board.

Here is the 2nd important idea. Being antifragile. Here's the best summary I could find. The Triad is FRAGILE — ROBUST — ANTIFRAGILE.
1678998105722.png

PPS: This is an important idea that is extremely meta. It goes into game theory and meta analytics.

Again. I do not agree with everything the author believes in life. We are all on a journey. Some closer to others and we are connected, hence my desire to be social here despite my hesitance. Honestly, I'd be open to a DM with a mod or someone who's been here a while and is personable. Which will lead me to a PPPS. Of course, 3. Before that, let's get into this. This is very important to understand how our adversary strategizes.

Hegel's Dialectic Model of Synthesis
***

PPPS- Finally, thank you so much. I am so humbled and greatful to be here. This is a nice finish.

Eudaimonia and Virtue Theory
 
You might be a bit outgunned here Singularity, leading with a video that essentially endorses drugs on some level is frowned upon.
I watched the video and didn't find that it promoted drugs as you suggested. It gives ways to be more active, set reasonable attainable goals and striking a balance in life. It is similar to advice given how to be the person you would like to be in life, by taking on the challenges but doing it in baby steps instead of setting the steps too high and thinking that one can get there by the first attempt. The word 'flow' is just a hip word, I think, to repackage this advice in a new form. Jordan Peterson has given similar advice in how to get a handle on your life and starting by 'cleaning your room'.
 
I watched the video and didn't find that it promoted drugs as you suggested. It gives ways to be more active, set reasonable attainable goals and striking a balance in life. It is similar to advice given how to be the person you would like to be in life, by taking on the challenges but doing it in baby steps instead of setting the steps too high and thinking that one can get there by the first attempt. The word 'flow' is just a hip word, I think, to repackage this advice in a new form. Jordan Peterson has given similar advice in how to get a handle on your life and starting by 'cleaning your room'.
Do you think though that you can reach the same flow state through drugs? The same kind of state great athletes can achieve through hours and hours of hard work and determination. The whole idea cheapens the hard work others have put in.
 
Geezus…from the video: “Neurochemically speaking, entering a “flow” state is like smoking a blunt, snorting coke, and taking ecstasy all at the same time.” Sounds fun and definitely spiritual!

Where people come up with this crap I don’t know, but as a guy who didn’t do drugs in high school. I watched many people combine those three substances and they were in anything but a flow state.

You might be a bit outgunned here Singularity, leading with a video that essentially endorses drugs on some level is frowned upon.
Please delete video. Can I edit my post. I was trying to find a quick video about flow from the book. Not someone's individual lifestyle.


Can mods please replace that video with th



Regardless. The flow book, any video related to it, is not what was meant. Don't strawman me broski haha.

Please delete original video.

I might be posting something very interesting soon.

God bless.
 
There are many things that can be said about self-observation and what it is and what it is not. The whole of the Work starts from a man beginning to observe himself. Self-observation is a means of self-change. Serious and continuous self-observation, if done aright, leads to definite inner changes in a man.

Let us, first of all, consider self-observation in connection with a mistake often made about it. The mistake is the confusing of self-observation with knowing. To know and to observe are not the same thing. Speaking superficially, you may know you are sitting in a chair in your room, but can you say that you are actually observing it? Speaking more deeply, you may know you are in a negative state, but that does not mean that you are observing it.

A person in the Work said to me that he disliked somebody intensely. I said: "Try to observe it." He replied: "Why should I observe it? I don't need to. I know it already." In such a case, the person is confusing knowing with observing; that is, he does not understand what self-observation is. Moreover he has not grasped that self-observation, which is active, is a means of self-change, whereas merely knowing, which is passive, is not. Knowing is not an act of attention. Self-observation is an act of attention directed inwards - to what is going on in you. The attention must be active; that is, directed. In the case of a person you dislike, you notice what thoughts crowd into your mind, the chorus of voices speaking in you, what they are saying, what unpleasant emotions surge up, and so on. You notice also that you are treating the person you dislike very badly inside. Nothing is too bad to think of him or feel about him. But to see all this requires directed attention, not passive attention. The attention comes from the observing side, whereas the thoughts and emotions belong to the observed side in your-self. This is dividing yourself into two. There is a saying: "A man is first one, then two, and the one." The observing side, or Observing "I", stands interior to, or above, the observed side, but its power of independent consciousness varies, because it may be submerged at any moment. Then you are completely identified with the negative state. You do not observe the state but you are the state. You can then say that you know you are negative, but that is not to observe it. If the Observing "I" is supported by other 'I's which value the Work and recall it and wish to become more conscious, then it is not so easily submerged by the flood of negative things. It is then helped by - and is a part of - Deputy Steward. All this is quite different from merely knowing one is negative. Passive knowing can be said to be mechanical in contrast to self-observation which is a conscious act and cannot become mechanical. Mechanical self-observation has nothing to do with Work self-observation.

People not only confused knowing with the continuous act of self-observation but they mistake thinking for observing. To think is quite different from observing oneself. A man may think about himself all day and never observe himself once. The observation of one's thoughts is not the same as thinking. It should be clear now that knowing and thinking are not the same as observation.

The question is often asked: "What must I observe?" First, the Work explains carefully what you must begin to observe. But later a man must attain to fuller observation of himself - for a whole day, or a week - and see himself as an outside person. He must think what he would think if he met himself. He would, of course, cordially dislike this man who is himself. A man must observe everything in himself and always as if it were not him-self but IT. This means that he must say: "What is IT doing?" not "What am I doing?" He then sees now these thoughts going on in him, now these emotions, now these private plays and inventions, and so on, passing through him; one after the other. Next moment, of course, he goes to sleep again and takes part in them all. That is, he acts in the play he has composed and thinks it is real. He thinks he is the part he invented.

Let us consider this viewpoint further. A man must be able to say: "This is not me" to all his set pieces and his songs, to all the performances going on in him, to all the voices that he takes as his own. You know how sometimes just before going to sleep at night, you hear loud voices in your head. These are 'I's speaking. During the day, they are speaking all the time, only you take them as 'I', as yourself. But just before sleep, a separation takes place naturally, for connections are being broken between centres and between 'I's in order that sleep may be possible. Two or more 'I's can keep you from sleeping. So you hear them, as it were, as voices talking, just for a moment, because they are being separated by natural processes from you.

Inner separation means the power of not merely saying: "This is not I", but ultimately of actually perceiving it for oneself - perceiving that it is true, that "this is not I", not merely thinking it is so or trying to persuade oneself it is, or saying this is what the Work says.

When you are in an unpleasant state, if you observe yourself over some considerable time, you will notice that all sorts of different groups of unpleasant 'I's try to deal with it in succession and make something out of it. This is because negative 'I's live by being negative. Their life consists in negative thinking or negative feeling - that is, in providing you with unpleasant thoughts and feelings. It is their delight to do so for it is their life. In the Work, the enjoyment of negative states must be observed sincerely, especially the secret enjoyment of them. The reason is that if a man enjoys being negative, in whatever forms, and they are legion - he can never separate from them. You cannot separate yourself from what you have a secret affection for. The case actually is that you identify with negative 'I's through secret affection and so feel their enjoyment, for whatever you identify with you become. A man in himself is constantly transforming himself into different 'I's. He has nothing permanent, but by separation he can make something permanent. The line of separation is between what likes and what hates the Work.

Now we speak once more of observing talking. All rules are about talking, practically speaking, and how to deal with wrong talking. It is necessary to observe inner talking and from where it is coming. Wrong inner talking is the breeding-ground not only of many future unpleasant states but also of wrong outer talking. You know that there is in the Work what is called the practise of inner silence. The practise and meaning of inner silence is like this: first, it must be about something quite distinct and definite; and second, it is like not touching it. That is, you cannot practise inner silence in any vague general way, save perhaps as an experiment for a time. But you can practise it rigidly in regard to some distinct and definite thing, something you know and see quite clearly. Someone once asked: "Is practising inner silence the same as not letting something come into your mind?" The answer is no. It is not the same. What you are practising inner silence about is already in the mind and you must be aware of it, but you must not touch it with your inner speech, your inner tongue. Your outer literal tongue likes to touch sore places, as when a tooth hurts. So does your inner tongue. But if it does, the sore thing in your mind flows into your inner speech and unwraps itself as inner talking in every direction. You have noticed of course that inner talking always goes on in negative states and that it coins many unpleasant phrases, which suddenly find expression in outer talking, perhaps long after. In the Work we are told that it is necessary to be careful about wrong outer talking at first, and, later on, about wrong inner talking. Actually, wrong outer talking is mostly due to wrong inner talking. Wrong inner talking, particularly venomous and evil inner talking, and so on, makes a mess within, like excrement. They are all different forms of lying and this is why they have such strength and persistence. Lies are always more powerful than truth because they can hurt. If you observe wrong inner talking you will notice it is only half-truths, or truths connected in the wrong order, or with something added or left out. In other words, it is simply lying to oneself. If you say: "Is this quite true?" it may stop it, but it will find another set of lies. Eventually you must dislike it. If you enjoy it, you will never lessen its power. It is not enough to dislike liking it: you must dislike it.

All this belongs to the purification of the emotional life. Mechanically we only like ourselves, and so we dislike or hate those who do not like us. A development of being is not possible, and quite obviously so, unless the emotions cease to have only this basis of self-liking. External considering, in the Work, is putting oneself in the position of others. This is referred to in the Gospels:


This is one of the definite formulations in the Gospels of what in the Work is called External Considering. But a man must think very deeply what it says and perceive internally what it means, because it has an outer and inner meaning. If you say: "I always think of others," then observe it. It is probably a buffer. You do not notice perhaps that you say things, or you write things, which, if you received, you would not tolerate for a moment. This is one very interesting form of self-observation and it includes observing "inner talking". In yourself everyone else is helpless. You can, as it were, drag a person into the cave of yourself and do what you like with her or him. You may be polite naturally, but in the Work, which is all about purifying or organising the inner life, it is not enough. It is how you behave internally and invisibly to one another that really counts. This is very difficult to understand. You may think you know this already. But to understand - even to understand it - takes many years of work. When the inner corresponds with the outer and when the outer obeys the inner, then a man possesses a "second body". As we are, our outer life does not correspond with our inner life, and our outer life controls our inner. The inner grows by seeing the good of something. Recently here we were talking of what the saint, Cassian, says about a man being able to do the same thing for different reasons. A man may act from fear - fear of law, fear of reputation, fear of opinion. Then he acts from outside. Or he may act from ambition - and many other similar forms of self-interest. Or he may act from good - from seeing the good of acting so. This develops the internal man. Now all this can be a subject of self-observation. But even the first stages of self-observation have a certain effect. They let in rays of light into the darkness of our psychic life. It is the psychic life we have to think of in the Work. All the instructions of the Work are about one's psychic life, which is in chaos. In this way, self-observation becomes deeper, and the valuation of the Work becomes more and more internal. So the Work begins to act on Essence - on what is the real part of man.

Work on oneself is always the same. It does not matter where you are. You are always in contact with the Work if your inner attitude to it is right. If your inner attitude is right, the Work will teach you about what work on yourself means. If your inner attitude is wrong, it cannot, because you block the way. In all self-observation, if it is to become full self-observation, you must observe IT. That is, you must see all your reactions to life and circumstances as IT in you and not as 'I'. If you say 'I', then nothing can happen. The saying of 'I', the feeling of 'I', makes it impossible to change. If to every negative state you say 'I', then you cannot escape it. At first a man takes himself as one and says 'I' to all that happens in his psychic life. But in order to change he must become two. Then, later on, he may become one - a unity. The instrument of self-observation is like a knife that cuts us away from what is not us. If you begin to see what it means to say: "This is not 'I'", then you begin to use this instrument.

When you can really say: "What is IT doing?" instead of "What am I doing?" you begin to understand the Work. The Work is to make a new set of reactions or rather new ways of taking things. As long as you take ordinary things in a new way you begin to change. You cannot remain the same - and change. If you are always the same it means that you always react to life in the same way. You insist on your pound of flesh. The idea of change is not to be the same. The idea of the Work is to change oneself. The idea of self-observation is to separate from what one was by not going with what one observes. In this way self-observation is a means of self-change.


* * *

When you have begun to form in yourself the powerful mental instrument of this Work, you will find that wherever you turn it, you will catch new meanings. The Work forms in us a new instrument of reception, a new apparatus for receiving impressions, both from outside and from inside. The Work lies in parts that have to be joined together by means of understanding. Each part of the Work, each separate idea, each bit of the teaching, is exactly like the parts of, say, a radio-machine. The parts of a radio are, let us say, lying on a table and you can see them. If you know enough, if you understand what they are, you can put them together and then the instrument begins to work and you hear all sorts of invisible things that otherwise you could not hear. In the case of the Work, each part is not something physical, an outer object lying on a table, but is psychical - an idea, a thought, a direction, a formulation, a diagram, and so on. If all these parts fitted together by understanding, and valuation, the Work forms a new and organised apparatus in you. That is, you are newly organised. You have a new psychic organism in you. The Work is actually a whole and complete organism which is given little by little, part by part, but all these parts are parts of a true whole. If the Work is thus formed in you, you have a new thing, a new organised instrument in you. Even a single part of the Work, if taken in with valuation and understanding, will begin to work a change in you because it will transmit new influences. But the whole of the Work must be formed in a man. This can be thought of as another body - another organised thing in man - if the man lives the Work. Then it will control the man he was.

[Maurice Nicoll, Commentaries, pp. 213-217, Vol. 1]
Thank you for sharing a great piece of writing Craig. This connected a lot of dots for me. How is the rest of the book?
 
Please delete video. Can I edit my post. I was trying to find a quick video about flow from the book. Not someone's individual lifestyle.


Can mods please replace that video with th



Regardless. The flow book, any video related to it, is not what was meant. Don't strawman me broski haha.

Please delete original video.

I might be posting something very interesting soon.

God bless.
What type of serious person calls people broski? Do you operate like frat guys?

Introducing yourself in the newbies section would be the correct step…. Not some weird plea to Laura to mentor you to write a book.

I’m not straw manning you, if you post a video I’ll take a look to see if it’s serious, and if the author is comparing flow state to being under the influence of drugs, well objectively that’s wrong. It ain’t all about vibes. Your reaction to want the video deleted just shows you didn’t put much thought into it. It’s a rather basic subject for anyone who’s seriously pursued something like athletic achievement, hard work and persistence will let you achieve flow and perform well. The same techniques can’t necessarily be applied to subjects confronting our reality like psychopathy.
 
Back
Top Bottom