Session 10 October 2015
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Don't think so. Psychopathy is a topic, which has been somewhat covered by mainstream science, even though it's not been dealt with on the larger scale. On the other hand, where would you see coverage of the phantom menace called possessions from other realities? Not many manuals out there, yet, as we can see, there are signs of them happening..
Psychopathy is a case of more harmful 'possession' although more subtle (at least compared to the pictures). That is my present thinking anyway. In the pictures a lot of them are just taking what a lot of people - identify with specific memes of fashion, and taking it to a disrespectful extreme. That's been going on for a while, but with the sorts in these pictures becomes more obvious.
It seems like some people, who reject society by identifying with a disrespectful aspect of that society, either have little grasp of moderation and differentiation, or are somewhat undeveloped in terms of an inner milieu. And in rejecting to this degree, it becomes easier and easier for them to automatically associate common notions of respect and being respectable, with everything they might deem "bad" about the people around them. Like a child who cannot integrate the good aspects of its parent with the bad, which is always a difficult process, but in this case applied to society as a whole and taken to an uncomfortable extreme.
That is to say if there is thinking involved, then it is black-and-white thinking. Beyond that, if making others uncomfortable without purpose (absent exposure of a truth) is what their goal is (like some of 'modern art'), if it is what they strive to do and to be, then they are not presently capable of understanding the use of common societal morals (which would be to help people align with the right way to act). Without such rules in society, the right thing might be slightly harder to realize, because conscience requires training and growth. And furthermore they exist to help relate to other people, in ways all parties can understand.
Thus if I, for instance, were to obsess over/identify with one of these "artistic" (speaking highly subjectively) modes of expression, it would be easier to forget about the ideal ways to act, because I would have an incorrect idea about how I am making other people feel, and because I am acting in a way that does not make sense to others.
I'm not sure if what I say makes sense at all. My opinion could probably be subject to a lot of revision.
It seems like some people, who reject society by identifying with a disrespectful aspect of that society, either have little grasp of moderation and differentiation, or are somewhat undeveloped in terms of an inner milieu. And in rejecting to this degree, it becomes easier and easier for them to automatically associate common notions of respect and being respectable, with everything they might deem "bad" about the people around them. Like a child who cannot integrate the good aspects of its parent with the bad, which is always a difficult process, but in this case applied to society as a whole and taken to an uncomfortable extreme.
That is to say if there is thinking involved, then it is black-and-white thinking. Beyond that, if making others uncomfortable without purpose (absent exposure of a truth) is what their goal is (like some of 'modern art'), if it is what they strive to do and to be, then they are not presently capable of understanding the use of common societal morals (which would be to help people align with the right way to act). Without such rules in society, the right thing might be slightly harder to realize, because conscience requires training and growth. And furthermore they exist to help relate to other people, in ways all parties can understand.
Thus if I, for instance, were to obsess over/identify with one of these "artistic" (speaking highly subjectively) modes of expression, it would be easier to forget about the ideal ways to act, because I would have an incorrect idea about how I am making other people feel, and because I am acting in a way that does not make sense to others.
I'm not sure if what I say makes sense at all. My opinion could probably be subject to a lot of revision.
I had the same thought! 
I am thinking they are insanely rich, or they work exclusively in tattoo parlors/disco-type places. Not too future-oriented, I suspect.
I am thinking they are insanely rich, or they work exclusively in tattoo parlors/disco-type places. Not too future-oriented, I suspect.
H-KQGE
Dagobah Resident
Buddy said:
diligence said:I had the same thought!
My thoughts too, more than the initial disbelief in their looks. If they do have a job then those jobs & those communities must be seriously messed up. And more people of different ages are likely to "subscribe" to that lifestyle/culture. If some have low paid jobs (what about sponsors?!) then what are they doing to be able to maintain that life? They're in virtually unknown territory where mental, emotional, & mostly physical health is concerned. Like, If you start to go blind, what the heck are you gonna do?! Where are the resources to treat any health complications that will invariably arise? In case I've missed it on the forum, there's an English guy (lizard man?) looking similar to these photos who mutilated his ears to look like a bird (parakeet or something) & has the full range of colourful face tattoos. What a sec.... here he is! _http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/parrot-man-who-chopped-ears-6772558
syldan
Dagobah Resident
The session was very synchronistic for me in many ways, and when i re-read the words of wisdom of the C's about how we present/represent ourselves: Somehow, i am not so sure that the clothes and tatoos are the real issue here? (Except in certain exaggerated cases of obvious desire to provoke)
To me it is more about behavior, and how one is perceived. For example not accepting to be around people who spend their time talking behind other people's back, for example. Also taking a stand, and making sure that those around us understand that we will not tolerate that any more. As well as refusing to be 'used' by manipulative types, and making that known to those people verbally as well. To me that is taking a stance that differentiates one from the rest?
To me it is more about behavior, and how one is perceived. For example not accepting to be around people who spend their time talking behind other people's back, for example. Also taking a stand, and making sure that those around us understand that we will not tolerate that any more. As well as refusing to be 'used' by manipulative types, and making that known to those people verbally as well. To me that is taking a stance that differentiates one from the rest?
romochar said:
I think, this may be part of it. Certain behaviors which are in resonance to a group/reality align one with that group/reality. And not choosing to align with certain facets anymore loosens the ties to that reality - like opting out of talking behind other people's back. But one has to consciously choose something different instead, in order to "fill the gap": this may involve overthinking one's own actions and reactions and re-molding them appropriately (changing self-presentations?). This again may reflect in another way in reality / remold reality therefore (reflection = self-representation?): f. ex. learning to talk openly to people in honest but respectful manner. Empirically, one may then seek out other people who deal with issues more openly, and associate with them.
But I also think, going to certain locations, listening to certain kinds of music, clothing & body styles may just set one up to align with peers who present themselves similarly. They may share a common language set (like certain slangs), which again also furthers certain and group-typical behaviors. In the end, the physical presentations (clothes etc.) and non-physical presentations (behaviors, language) seem to be interlocked in presenting oneself as part of a certain reality and receiving according feedback of that reality (reflection)...
That's just my take on this :)
I think it can be summed up as "presentation reflects essence." There may be relatively nice and naïve people who get sucked into these extreme fashions, but if it goes against who you are and what you ultimately stand for, it only serves to disrupt your energy.
As for looking like "monsters," these kids seem to be aligning themselves with the presentation of the monsters themselves. I think this creates a certain resonance with some real nasties, however tenuous, that opens the door to contact and a process of subtle gradual enslavement and consumption like what is detailed in the case studies of the Hostage to the Devil. The dark entities will take over more and more of their lives without them even noticing, and it all began with one relatively innocuous choice. No wonder the Cassiopaeans emphasized the importance of psychic hygiene.
As for looking like "monsters," these kids seem to be aligning themselves with the presentation of the monsters themselves. I think this creates a certain resonance with some real nasties, however tenuous, that opens the door to contact and a process of subtle gradual enslavement and consumption like what is detailed in the case studies of the Hostage to the Devil. The dark entities will take over more and more of their lives without them even noticing, and it all began with one relatively innocuous choice. No wonder the Cassiopaeans emphasized the importance of psychic hygiene.
I watched a very interesting video recently which I think is connected in some way with what has been discussed here. It is a talk by a man called Gordon Neufeld called Kids Need us more than Friends, (He co-wrote a book with Gabor Mate on the same subject called Hold on to your Kids: Why Parent need to matter more than Peers http://www.amazon.com/Hold-On-Your-Kids-Parents/dp/0375760288)
It talks about our children's attachment and to whom they are attached. The main basis is that children have moved away from looking to adults as their peers and they instead look to their friends and other children for how to act, dress and behave. One of the things said was that children talk like the people whom they are attached to. So the distortion of proper English into bizarre slang languages with the adoption of new "lazy" ways of talking comes from them emulating each other and their habits. This also goes for fashion, hair cuts and so on. It's an amazing video and I recommend it.
So I believe there is a link there with what was written here in that if we want to show our alignment with a certain way of being we do that in a small way by how we behave and present ourselves. We act like those we wish to be with, we give our hearts to the people we admire and that way we can take on board the advice given to us by them and we can model ourselves on the values that they promote.
I'm not sure how to make the video itself show up in the comment box however I had added the link here for anyone who is interested.
https://youtu.be/UlMkWJY5T_w
It talks about our children's attachment and to whom they are attached. The main basis is that children have moved away from looking to adults as their peers and they instead look to their friends and other children for how to act, dress and behave. One of the things said was that children talk like the people whom they are attached to. So the distortion of proper English into bizarre slang languages with the adoption of new "lazy" ways of talking comes from them emulating each other and their habits. This also goes for fashion, hair cuts and so on. It's an amazing video and I recommend it.
So I believe there is a link there with what was written here in that if we want to show our alignment with a certain way of being we do that in a small way by how we behave and present ourselves. We act like those we wish to be with, we give our hearts to the people we admire and that way we can take on board the advice given to us by them and we can model ourselves on the values that they promote.
I'm not sure how to make the video itself show up in the comment box however I had added the link here for anyone who is interested.
https://youtu.be/UlMkWJY5T_w
Thank you lainey, this is something i can use right away, with my kids and myself.lainey said:
The child has a program to not do what it is ordered to do, unless there is a bond between it and the one ordering.
This program society does not like much. When the bond between child and responsible-parent has broken, the child will look instead for others to bond with, and even gets told to (go play with that other child). The problem is here, that relating with other kids will be in the same hierarchical format as the one it just lost with the parent. Thus the bond with the parent needs to be kept, until the child has finished growing its sense of self and can hold its own. The surrogate bond with peers will make the child insecure, for it is conditional and shallow, and there is a high potential for the child to get hurt emotionally. This can lead to alienation, as you see with the lizardman. Lizardman doesn't scare me, i see somebody who is hurting.
lainey said:
Thanks lainey, I also think this video is very interesting. Gordon Neufeld says his first field of study was natural sciences with a background in chemistry and physics. I am not finished watching the whole video but I thought I would thank you now so I don't forget.
It was the part where he was explaining that you couldn't teach kids whose heart you didn't have that really touched me. It's so true and I see examples of it every day at college. There is a teacher who does anatomy and physiology who is simply the sweetest, cleverest little old lady and her teaching style is brilliant. She has everyone's heart in the class and we all do exceedingly well in that subject. Then at the other end of the scale there is a lady who is abrupt and rude without realising it and we just don't learn from her as easily, the class is chaos at times.goyacobol said:
I think if we can trust and give our heart to the forum and the Work there will be no limit to what we can achieve.
Ahhh, I see. It's the embed option on you tube where I was going wrong. I was trying to embed the standard share link. Thanks very much for letting me know!Palinurus said:
Ta daaa!:
