Sheep and wolves - practical guide.

j0da

Jedi Council Member
Hello fellow travellers,

I write this post with a little bit of hesitation, because the material which I'd like to propose to your attention is directly connected with philsophy and technology which through the years went under such a vicious covert and overt attack, that it's misaplication, distortion, misunderstanding went to great lenghts in relatively short time, comparing with the degradation of application of eastern philosophies. There still may be places where on could find knowledgable, honest and able practictioners in that particular field, but because of it's wide scope and huge area of spiritual reality covered by this philosophy it's extremely difficult to reach one contructive conclusion whether or not engage in it, or where to look for help or practice. I've spent three years of my life researching that area and still I have many unanswered questions.
Nevertheless, there are pieces of workable knowledge in that philosophy that I found extremely useful already, which could aid us in difficult task of discerning between sheep and wolves.

The problem is, souled beings may often be in such a poor spiritual/psychological shape, that they can be mistaken with psychopatic villains. Those persons share some traits with beings we try to keep away from.

I write this after reading Magus' post entitled "Keys To Spotting Self-Involvement". I've spotted there some references to particular behaviour which was part of my own actions/beingness. While I uderstand the best intentions of Magus, his statements were oversilmplified to the point, that I've finally decided to post the material.

I've intentionally omitted calling the philosophy by it's name, because I think we don't need any more ill-willed attention, that we already have. More than that, I'll post only the google query for number of reasons which I'm ready to explain, but maybe it won't be necessary.

Here is short excerpt from a book:

---
Chapter 9
COVERT HOSTILITY (1.1)

Covert: 1)Covered or covered over; sheltered. 2)concealed; hidden; secret.

Hostile: 1) Of or pertaining to an enemy. 2)feeling or showing enmity; antagonistic.
American Heritage Dictionary

The main difficulty with a 1.1 is that he doesn't wear a neon sign telling you he's a 1.1.
It's a cover-up tone the most difficult one on the scale to recognize. After you do spot
one, don't expect the next 1.1 you meet to bear much resemblance.

HIS MANY DISGUISES
He may be that hearty buffoon, "the life of the party."She's the inconspicuous little old
maid down the street who never forgets your birthday. He could be the jovial, back-slapping salesman. The smooth con man. The witty, entertaining gossip columnist. The swaggering
office Don Juan who might be the smiling lady next door who knows all the delicious little
stories about the neighbors. He's the lover who is gay and tenderly passionate one minute and disdainfully sarcastic the next. He's the clever impostor who passed himself off as a surgeon
for fifteen years. He's the gentle-mannered homosexual. Or that pleasant young man who
"never said an unkind word to anyone"but was just convicted of seven hideous sex crimes. Or
that newspaper reporter who appeared so friendly until his story (full of slimy innuendoes)was
in print. And here's where we find that nice bank president who embezzled $100,000 and skipped off to Brazil with the belly dancer. He could be the sensitive poet, the suave millionaire
or the charming vagrant who lives by his wits and hasn't done a day's work in twenty years. Wherever he turns up, he'll be in disguise. If you're generous in character, you may be tempted to treat him leniently. Don't.

(...)

AS A FRIEND
You won't need enemies. You'd be better off as a recluse. Don't trust him with your money, your reputation or your wife. He's a person who hates but is unable to say he hates.
He deals in treachery and expects to be forgiven. He'll tell you he stood up for you when he actually did his best to destroy your reputation. He'll flatter you quite insincerely while he
waits for his moment to do you in. And he'll find more ways of doing you in than I can possibly catalog in one chapter.

The 1.1 expects special privileges or exemptions, He'll be the one most likely to assume that he can break the rules of a marriage, a company, a group or society.
We often like the 1.1 at first because he pretends to be so high-tone. But eventually (unless we're in Sympathy)we grow to despise him. Our loathing, however, is sometimes
hard to explain because we can seldom pin down exactly what this doll is doing that's so despicable.
While he's arrogant, he's such an accomplished actor that we may be deceived by his
put-on of humility Having command of all the tones below his, he uses them without conscience to convince us he's harmless and means well. In this way, he manipulates people, always seeking hidden control. He may weep, plead, propitiate or sympathize; he may pose contempt or disdain. But through all the histrionics he is trying to nullify others to get them to
the level where they can be used.
If you get mad at him, he usually drops to Propitiation (goes out of his way to do
things for you or brings you gifts)or Grief ("I didn't mean any harm...")in order to worm his
way back into your confidence. Count on him to know your soft spots and to play on them
with consummate skill.

CONVERSATION
Here's a fast way to peg a 1.1: he seeks to introvert you. This generally occurs in the
first few seconds of meeting him. He'll say, "You've gained some weight, haven't you?"or "I
can't figure out why you look so different..."On the phone, he may open the conversation
with: ''Your voice sounds funny; do you have a cold?"Under the guise of friendly concern,
these remarks are meant to push your attention into yourself (and away from him). Soon you'll
be explaining yourself or worrying: "What's the matter with me?"
On meeting, the 1.1 nearly always tries to speak first in order to grasp control of the conversation. If he gets his own darts in first, there is less chance for something to be thrown
at him. I once introduced two 1.1 men to each other. As I did so, I wondered who would win
the inevitable rush to get in the first word. Well, they both started talking at once, and they kept talking for at least a full minute, neither hearing a single word said by the other. They were
well-matched.
Covert Hostility fills his conversation with small barbs, thinly veiled as compliments
("this cake is delicious, almost as good as anything you could buy in a store"). It's a 1.1 who uttered the classic put-down: ''That's such a lovely dress you're wearing. I've admired it for years."
He feels a continual nervous necessity to reject almost any remark. If you're trying to
make a sincere statement or present an upscale idea, he'll query it, "I see what you mean,
but..."He'll helpfully correct your pronunciation and word choices (he's the semantic fanatic),
start picking lint off your shoulder, or interject a joke at your expense (usually with puns; he
loves them). He uses any conceivable method of cutting your communication to ribbons. Of
course (ha ha)he didn't mean any harm. Just being friendly.

HONESTY
He lies when there's no reason to lie. Facts are confused, twisted or hidden, while he noisily advertises his honesty, ethics and virtue. He may be giving you his "sacred word"
while he wields his automatic knife-in-the-back trickery.
If you challenge his lies, he'll probably tell you he was being "subtle."
(...)

from "How to Choose Your People" by Ruth Minshull

----

The point is - I'VE BEEN LIKE THIS! Yeah, that's true. After reading this book I felt very, very bad. I was forced to confront my own behaviour patterns, to really see what kind of man I was. But, from that point things started to change, I started to change. There are lots of things I still have to work on, but I'm already on the way of clearing my act.

Apart from seeing myself in the mirror for the first time of my life I also had a tool for choosing people with whom I'd like to associate and spot those which I should avoid. Oh boy, that really gets much burdern off one's shoulders.

So, without further ado, here is a google query - just paste it in google and hit enter ;)

"how to choose your people" +filetype:pdf

best wishes,
 
I just gave a look to this book.
Seems like most of it is taken from L. Hubbard of Scientology fame material.

Minshull said:
Early in 1951 a close friend save me a book called Dianetics: The Modern Science
of Mental Health, by an American writer and philosopher, L. Ron Hubbard (who later
founded the international Church of Scientology). This enlightening book exposed
the major cause and remedy of man's miseries. In addition, however, Ron Hubbard
also reported his first research in an entirely new field of study: the classification and
prediction of human behavior...
And then there is a quote which precedes the first chapter:

Minshull said:
''The basic nature of Man is not bad. It is good. But between him and that goodness
are fears, rages and repression's."
L. Ron Hubbard, ''The Free Man, " Ability 232
I think Hubbard should read more about psychopaths, or maybe he already did and don't want others to know about it.

I didn't read the whole book, so maybe there is something of value there anyway.
 
martin said:
I think Hubbard should read more about psychopaths, or maybe he already did and don't want others to know about it.

I didn't read the whole book, so maybe there is something of value there anyway.
It's hard to discuss with prejudice, Martin. Really knowing what one is talking about makes communication much easier, while
jumping on some conclusions only after stumbling over a name which had been biased to the extreme..well, it doesn't help.
But, I'm not here to argue over the subject, nor to promote it. I posted the material which I consider worthy of exploration with
pure intent of providing some data which can add to our knowledge base and help us navigate trough the jungle of human variety.
It may sound simple or unscholarly, but for a common man this book is what he can easily grok. It may not interest seasoned researchers,
or very knowledgable individuals, but those are not the only kind of people that come here.

p.s. I'm aware how hot the subject may be, so I tried to be as subtle as possible. But, maybe it isn't enough, maybe there should never be any mention/link/reference of scio philosophy or LRH in this forum, just to avoid unnecessary heating. If such a policy is to be maintained here - it's ok with me, I can understand it and respect the will of moderators.
 
Some points I saw in that original message sounded very familiar, I am too guilty of committing some of those covertly hostile acts! Now I am questioning myself:
Where did you/it learn that behaviour from?
Although I am determined to find out every bit of ill nature I've acquired, it often drives me close to despair wondering just how oblivious I really am to the extent of the programming. I mean, in true objectivity, just how sophisticated IS this STS machine?
Scary in a way I think... I'd love to be able to work out a percentage based on the darkness I've uncovered compared to the full, objective amount of it, but that would severely hinder the learning progress won't it?
 
j0da said:
It's hard to discuss with prejudice, Martin. Really knowing what one is talking about makes communication much easier, while
jumping on some conclusions only after stumbling over a name which had been biased to the extreme..well, it doesn't help.
But, I'm not here to argue over the subject, nor to promote it. I posted the material which I consider worthy of exploration with
pure intent of providing some data which can add to our knowledge base and help us navigate trough the jungle of human variety.
It may sound simple or unscholarly, but for a common man this book is what he can easily grok. It may not interest seasoned researchers,
or very knowledgable individuals, but those are not the only kind of people that come here.
j0da:
I see you asuming that I don't know what I'm talking about and that my conclusions are just because a name.
How do you know that? Isn't that prejudice?
I know what I'm talking about. And it's not about a name, but about what I've read.
The first quote of the book is what most con new age movements are trying to promote combined with the "you create your own reality" thing.
"Everyone is potentially good, people just have problems and if you love them and think positive everything will get right". This is just not true, and the consecuences of believing so can be catastrophic, as we can see it in the world today. And if Hubbard is such a psychology genius as the book claims, he should know about psychopaths. Anyway, I made it clear that I didn't read the whole thing and said that there could be things of value in the book (which I will read later). So I see no prejudice in my post. It was just a warning about something factual I've found in the book to readers, so they can check it being aware of this.
Thank you very much for posting the URL for the book!
 
All right, I wasn't precise in my comment so I think I owe you apology, Martin. What I was refering to about 'not knowing what one is talking about' was simple fact that Hub is already dead and that he really knew hell lot about humans. Degraded beings were not discussed in the open. Mind you, what can be said in public today (even if only on the internet) in no way could have been said in the 60' 70's or 80's witout fierce retaliation from the churches, governments and agencies. Unfortunately secrecy turned out to be a two-edged sword and the movement crumbled into chaos is spite of tremendous efforts of it's members. It's a sad story, but nevertheless, very instructing...

Regarding the book, I assume people acquainted with the C's material will be able to separate wheat from the chaff. So, forgive my hot-headedness, Martin - one never knows when he learns another lesson ;) Thanks for your concern.

regards,
 
Joda, you obviously know that Scientology and anything Hubberdian is a bit more than a "hot topic". There is a lot of literature on the web condemning these people with some pretty serious accusations, so it is bound to strike a few chords. At the very least, there is quite a bit of chaff to remove from the wheat here, and this is not at first apparent when you view only one behavioural category like the one described on your first post of this thread, since it many of us have experienced it in one way or another.

When viewing the whole behavioural chart, however, I find I cannot fit myself in it. Maybe if I chopped myself up into little pieces and placed each piece up and down the hierarchy...So it simply may be a useful guidline for some people, and not so useful for others. Scientology as a whole, however, covers a lot more than just this book (which has nothing to do with Thetans, I gather), and one can take the book in mention here as a stand-alone piece of information.

Personally, I have to respectfully say, that even with the extensive list categories the book presents, it may still limit us a bit to the realm of oversimplification of a really complex issue. Remember, a psychopath can play any and all roles on the list like an expert actor, especially if he or she has also read the book!:-)
 
EsoQuest said:
Personally, I have to respectfully say, that even with the extensive list categories the book presents, it may still limit us a bit to the realm of oversimplification of a really complex issue. Remember, a psychopath can play any and all roles on the list like an expert actor, especially if he or she has also read the book!:-)
Hi, but you gotta remember that (and this is only from my experiences), a psychopath is manipulating ALL THE TIME. They are acting ALL THE TIME. None of what they do is GENUINE and all of what they do is in order to manipulate or control a desired outcome. That outcome can be large or small, but they're all 'outcomes' to a psychopath. They cannot take a rest from that, because they do not have any capacity for empathy. This is (again my opinion only) the empathy of feeling which a person with higher centers has, or the empathy of an OP which is a more mechanical empathy - the ability to understand from a logical or mental point of view (call it cognitive empathy) what it would be like to be in the same situation.

Imo opinion psychopaths are the easy ones to 'spot' because its a recognised pathology. They have no ability to co-operate, only manipulate. They are literally the center of their own universes and cannot understand why others do not wish to 'serve' them, all the time. All reaction and behaviour is for effect only. None of it is genuine.

Where-as an OP does have the ability to co-operate, quite nicely in fact. I think they have a stonger 'co-operative' instinct than maybe even a person who has higher centers has. We are afterall STS, so our instinct is to steal energy rather than co-operate. You can observe our second density bretheren for ideas on the type of co-operation they ingage in. Perhaps for survival, I don't know? But maybe some of that sort of thing crosses the barrier to humans.
 
Ruth said:
Where-as an OP does have the ability to co-operate, quite nicely in fact. I think they have a stonger 'co-operative' instinct than maybe even a person who has higher centers has. We are afterall STS, so our instinct is to steal energy rather than co-operate. You can observe our second density bretheren for ideas on the type of co-operation they ingage in.
Well, said. IMO, OP's have more of a herd instinct then indivualized people. They "get with the program" easy when the program is aligned with their interests, and demand that others get with the program as well. Psychopaths can make the same demands for conformity, but it is to their own agenda, and (as you said) they manipulate.

I believe it is important to consider also the individual with active higher centers. Personally, I have yet to meet an STO person without STS issues (I doubt I could stand them if I did)=D. Perhaps in past years it may have been easier to express STO, especially when STS needs were met. These days, however, society is a bit topsy turvey and stress is rampant.

I no not see it farfetched that some stressed out ensouled individual may find themselves in an environment of other ensouled individuals, also a bit bruised from dealing with today's psychopathic conditions, and that in that environment friction may result. As DonaldJHunt mentioned in another thread, selfishness, egocentrism (and let me add defensiveness) do not necessarily mean one is a psychopath. It can easily mean that an individualized soul has triggered an STS pocket in themselves (yes, even Adamics can get "scratched", IMO).

It's interesting, because when in a group of other individualized souls (also dealing with STS aspects in themselves), the scratching of one can lead to a chain reaction of irritation. Nobody likes to see in others reflections of what they do not like in themselves, and the ensouled can just gets irritated in the face of any blatant STS qualities. Having empathy does not mean you are Mother Teresa. The Adamic, in fact, is dealing with STS issues in themselves on the one hand, and also has a sense of self-sufficiency and distinct personal boundaries that make the whole dynamic of cooperation different than the more herd-like cooperation of OP's.

Psychopaths attack those boundaries, OP's scoff at them, and inner STS tries to define them in STS (selfish) terms. On top of it all, STO will not "interfere" to set things straight, so you are on your own. In all of this soup of challenges, the Adamic moves to extend their personal boundaries in cooperation with others, who have their own individuality, which they also seek to maintain in the face of all that confronts them. I guess you really need a sense of humour here to even get through the day! :)

It's true, however, that the ensouled individual understands that cooperation is important even in the face of all this. So we fall in the mud, and even if we end up looking like psychopaths with muddied faces, we get up, and if there is another ensouled one, they help us up and we laugh together as we keep slipping around in the mud pit.

We're all in this together (those who understand the importance of individualized cooperation), even if we're all distinct/different/unique and not quite on the same page. Even so, we are all part of the same book, the one written for those striving to ground an individual soul in an individual body.
 
EsoQuest said:
Well, said. IMO, OP's have more of a herd instinct then indivualized people. They "get with the program" easy when the program is aligned with their interests, and demand that others get with the program as well. Psychopaths can make the same demands for conformity, but it is to their own agenda, and (as you said) they manipulate.
I think these programs are very important to OPs. Imo, they need them the same way that a computer needs a program to function, or a car needs a driver to go anywhere.

I see OPs as people who will deliberately seek out programs which provide them with guidelines on how to behave in order to have their needs met. They are incapable of looking deep into anything, 'behind the curtain' or 'outside the box' and do not understand why anybody else would chose to do so. Their first question when asked to do something like that would be.... "why?"

I think that the majority of programs OPs chose to use are aligned with STS and OPs do not have the capability to discern their part in anything, or look behind the scenes at who benefits. It may have to do with a reduced sense of awareness in comparison to that of a non-OP.

Of course, after finding their various programs (which work very well for them), they absolutely can't work out why a non-OP would chose to question their need for a program.

This is very frustrating but does not make them 'portals of attack' especially if a person knows how they function and does not expect an OP to be a non-OP. Reducing your expectations when dealing with Ops may be one way of dealing with them.
 
Ruth said:
Imo opinion psychopaths are the easy ones to 'spot' because its a recognised pathology. They have no ability to co-operate, only manipulate. They are literally the center of their own universes and cannot understand why others do not wish to 'serve' them, all the time. All reaction and behaviour is for effect only. None of it is genuine.
The danger with this assessment is that there is most often NO WAY to determine that none of it is genuine - they are truly that good at it. The only way to determine this is a long period (several years usually) of close observation, resulting in the realization that their actions consistently, and often to their own detriment, do not match their most heart-felt words. I can't stress enough that an essential psychopath is not easy to spot. If you are picking up on psychopathic behaviour from someone, it is highly likely that what you are actually picking up on is merely psychopathic tendencies in an OP, or the behavior of a failed psychopath, not the actions of a successful essential psychopath - at least this has been my personal experience.
 
anart said:
The danger with this assessment is that there is most often NO WAY to determine that none of it is genuine - they are truly that good at it. The only way to determine this is a long period (several years usually) of close observation, resulting in the realization that their actions consistently, and often to their own detriment, do not match their most heart-felt words. I can't stress enough that an essential psychopath is not easy to spot. If you are picking up on psychopathic behaviour from someone, it is highly likely that what you are actually picking up on is merely psychopathic tendencies in an OP, or the behavior of a failed psychopath, not the actions of a successful essential psychopath - at least this has been my personal experience.
Hi Anart, I'm not sure if the person who you are basing your observations on was a psychopath or not. They may have had a diganosis of Borderline Personality. I had to 'special' one of these individuals at a hospital once. It seems they do behave like psychopaths and have absolutely no insight into how their behaviour effects others, but they do have one possible difference from a psychopath. They seem to genuinely feel pain and often take part in self destructive behaviour.

To my mind, a psychopath is ALWAYS acting. They never take a break from it. Whether its tears or laughter. None of its genuine and its all done for a purpose. You can often watch them watching you in order to guage your reaction (ie. is my manipulation working?) This is their feedback. I don't think a psychopath would feel genuine emotion about anything, nor would they do self destructive behaviour - unless THAT was a manipulation too. Something like suicide is a 'staged' operation, its never intended to work. I don't think they feel pain, only need. And they're certainly not going to harm themselves in their pursuit of what they 'need'.

I still think you can 'see' a psychopath a lot easier than what you can see an OP or a non-OP, but I seem to remember that you felt that the number of psychopaths was higher than what I did (1%).... Perhaps this accounts for the difference?

I live with an Op who was victimised by a psychopath. The psychopath used and manipulated my housemate in every way she could, then decided she was going to steal her husband (whom she saw as a really good potential income source). She started off by 'staging' a suicide attempt. I joked with my housemate asking her why at the time she didn't offer to 'help'. Then she deliberately got herself pregnant with her fourth child (the first to my housemates husband). It all ended in tears when she beat up my housemate and threw her out of their flat. And that's when she came to live with me. The psychopath saw my housemate as merely a means to an end. My housemate not only paid the bills but her husbands study (overseas student, so it amounted to thousands). She even wanted my housemate to continue funding her husband even though he was living with her and they now had a child together. Her husband was of course expected to pay for all her other kids too, just like the psychopaths husband was doing (double dipping?). She also wanted my housemate to either get a divorce or get immigration with her husband and then get a divorce. Nothing was too good for the psychopath as long as she got what SHE wanted and if it was at everybody elses expense, then too bad. And they lie like nobodies business too. Funnily enough the psychopath was lazy, had defrauded social security to the tune of 20000 and had a history of physical violence with her husband. Do they think they're doing anything wrong? No of course not. Getting caught is their only problem. They find that embarrasing.

And do you think my Op housemate can understand ANY of this? No, of course not, because she doesn't have the program for it and doesn't understand what a psychopath is anyway. Funnily enough all this girl had to do was to stand up to the psychopath I strongly suspect she would have backed down. Bullies and cowards need to find people who won't or cant stand up for themselves, perhaps. I think psychopaths probably tend to find their 'mark' and then set about exploiting that person. I'm not sure they can do this to everyone, because they need to maintain a set of lies in order to con the rest of the world into thinking that their 'mark' is the bad person, not them.

Oh well, that's one of the two psychopath stories I have. Luckily I seem to only have met the relatively 'low key' ones.
 
Back
Top Bottom