Telepathy and Distant Personality Diagnosis

[Stevie Argyl]

"Be careful of the printed matter: you may not read it as it is written down.” FM Alexander

I have been a member of the forum for four months now and I find this place interesting , informative and the people friendly , genuine and sincere in their desire to help others. And I thank everyone and I genuinely mean everyone who has taken the time to exchange with me and who have allowed me to stick my tuppence worth towards their posts.

One thing puzzles me though and it surprises me and continues to surprise me and that is what I can summarise as a tendency towards personality profiling by the written word, by reading posters posts. It surprises me primarily because many of those whom I have read doing the diagnosis thing are obviously well read and I would have expect a certain caution on concluding on a profile , expecially a profile based on a few posts on a forum.
As a therapist of 16 yrs who has daily contact with people I find the most damaging thing I can do for MYSELF and for My CLIENT is to box them in a profile. 'Here's your label ,sorted, thats me sussed you now, now I can stop thinking'. It is something I tried and wanted to be able to do in my first year or two until I realised not only the trap that was being set for both of us but also the arrogance , the over estimation of my abiliy implicit in the assumption that I could understand someone in 2 or 3 sessions, over even worse, the first session.

So, as I say, I have noticed new posters being boxed and 'tasted' and 'smelled' within three or four posts and would raise some questions which might be useful for self examination, I am applying this post to myself also.

Gurdjieff said that the work was the study of lying. I should have this tatooed in the inside of my eyes so that it is continually in front of me.

From Mme De Salzmann:
Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. That this lying rules you to such an extent that you cannot control it any more. You are the prey of lying. You lie, everywhere. Your relations with others—lies. The upbringing you give, the conventions—lies. Your teaching—lies. Your theories, your art—lies. Your social life, your family life—lies. And what you think of yourself—lies also.

So, I continually overestimate myself, I have fight my tendency to lying in the form of over estimating abilities, my lying in terms of wanting to appear smart, of when I read an internet diagnosis I have to fight not to form my own diagnosis of the person doing the diagnosis. Does it ever end?

There you have it, Is it useful to diagnose on internet where there is no way of verifying your conclusions by meeting the diagnosee and getting to know them and updating your model?
Is doing so an over estimation?

I apologise in advance if anyone feels offended by this, I have been considering posting this for sometime , weeks actually, but continually put it off. but in the spirit of the work uncomfortable questions sometimes produce the most worthwhile material post examination.

So where does our need to box, to diagnose, to come from? False personality? Arrogance? humility? Essence? Genuine Being Knowledge? From our need for safety and comfort in 'knowing'?
Where does our confidence in our ability come from? How do we verify this ability without face to face contact, without sensing each others qualities and emanations first hand?

In the spirit of the work
Stevie

 

[anart]

Hi Stevie, it sounds like I really touched a nerve when I observed that you have a tendency to over-intellectualize your emotional processes. It might be worthwhile to consider that the strength of your negative internal reaction to that (which likely prompted this thread) is in direct proportion to the truth of the statement. If it weren't true, would you have reacted so strongly?

Let me make it clear, again, that there is nothing at all unusual about the intellectualization of emotions - it's how most people learn to operate. What is unique is the ability to self-observe and at least consider the possibility that our intellect has been stepping in and doing the work of our emotional center - the ability to consider, with an open mind, that an observation that we find uncomfortable might be true.

One thing that also might be important to realize is that there is an enormous amount of information available to those with eyes to see from the written word. What we write and how we write it speaks literal volumes about our mental, emotional and even physical processes. If one knows how, they can literally 'see the unseen' through the written word - or - at the very least - get a very good general outline.

Identification is an insidious thing, as you likely know. In order to awaken, one must constantly, every day and in all things, battle it. fwiw.

Added later: By the way, Stevie, I truly didn't mean to offend you with that observation, so my apologies for that. I merely pointed it out on the chance that you might find it worth considering, and thus possibly benefit.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Hi Stevie, it sounds like I really touched a nerve when I observed that you have a tendency to over-intellectualize your emotional processes. It might be worthwhile to consider that the strength of your negative internal reaction to that (which likely prompted this thread) is in direct proportion to the truth of the statement. If it weren't true, would you have reacted so strongly?

Let me make it clear, again, that there is nothing at all unusual about the intellectualization of emotions - it's how most people learn to operate. What is unique is the ability to self-observe and at least consider the possibility that our intellect has been stepping in and doing the work of our emotional center - the ability to consider, with an open mind, that an observation that we find uncomfortable might be true.

One thing that also might be important to realize is that there is an enormous amount of information available to those with eyes to see from the written word. What we write and how we write it speaks literal volumes about our mental, emotional and even physical processes. If one knows how, they can literally 'see the unseen' through the written word - or - at the very least - get a very good general outline.

Identification is an insidious thing, as you likely know. In order to awaken, one must constantly, every day and in all things, battle it. fwiw.

Anart

So by this sentence

One thing that also might be important to realize is that there is an enormous amount of information available to those with eyes to see from the written word. What we write and how we write it speaks literal volumes about our mental, emotional and even physical processes. If one knows how, they can literally 'see the unseen' through the written word - or - at the very least - get a very good general outline.

Are you speaking about your own personal abilities.

Fwiw. A number of dominoes prompted this,

a couple from memory, there were more.

The personality diagnosis of the person with the avatar with no eyes (i forget the name) who posted on the neanderthal thread.
Did you diagnose this?

The instant reaction to triplethinks first posts today.
Did you diagnose this?

You seem very certain of your own ability , John Bennet writes how Gurdjieff would observe people for some time before deciding how and which work they needed, and Bennet expands on this saying that even after G's close examination he made mistakes with 2 people in Bennets knowledge who almost had breakdowns.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Anart

I feel my emotions, you can't intellectualise emotions without supression or abstracting, whats the point in that, thats been the point I have been continually trying to make.

When people feel bad they look for a way out by supressing / fantasising, justifiying, the only thing that can keep the feeling on track is the head continually leading the horse back out of the dream out of the escape and back into feeling.

 

[RyanX]

One thing puzzles me though and it surprises me and continues to surprise me and that is what I can summarise as a tendency towards personality profiling by the written word, by reading posters posts. It surprises me primarily because many of those whom I have read doing the diagnosis thing are obviously well read and I would have expect a certain caution on concluding on a profile , expecially a profile based on a few posts on a forum.
As a therapist of 16 yrs who has daily contact with people I find the most damaging thing I can do for MYSELF and for My CLIENT is to box them in a profile. 'Here's your label ,sorted, thats me sussed you now, now I can stop thinking'. It is something I tried and wanted to be able to do in my first year or two until I realised not only the trap that was being set for both of us but also the arrogance , the over estimation of my abiliy implicit in the assumption that I could understand someone in 2 or 3 sessions, over even worse, the first session.

Steve,

I don't think there is any attempt here to keep profiles; although, people here generally call things like they see them. If one notices a certain pattern of response or behavior that keeps coming up in somebody there are generally people here who will point this out.

Gurdjief says that there are definite Types for people and from what I've seen in my time here, I would agree. There are some people who lean towards one center or the other. There are common emotional programs in people that have common causes. Knowing how others perceive us can lead one to make improvements in managing one's many "Is", OSIT.

So, as I say, I have noticed new posters being boxed and 'tasted' and 'smelled' within three or four posts and would raise some questions which might be useful for self examination, I am applying this post to myself also.

Gurdjieff said that the work was the study of lying. I should have this tatooed in the inside of my eyes so that it is continually in front of me.

the first series of statements:

From Mme De Salzmann:
Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. That this lying rules you to such an extent that you cannot control it any more. You are the prey of lying. You lie, everywhere. Your relations with others—lies. The upbringing you give, the conventions—lies. Your teaching—lies. Your theories, your art—lies. Your social life, your family life—lies. And what you think of yourself—lies also.

So, I continually overestimate myself, I have fight my tendency to lying in the form of over estimating abilities, my lying in terms of wanting to appear smart, of when I read an internet diagnosis I have to fight not to form my own diagnosis of the person doing the diagnosis. Does it ever end?

The way you say this makes it sound futile, like you are too comfortable in your illusions to see yourself as you really are. No, it really doesn't end. All of us here are at one point or another in pealing away the layers of the onion of our own illusions. Nobody is exempt from this.

There you have it, Is it useful to diagnose on internet where there is no way of verifying your conclusions by meeting the diagnosee and getting to know them and updating your model?
Is doing so an over estimation?

Why do you think that seeing somebody's face helps you better diagnose their problems? Some problems reveal themselves quite clearly in the printed word. Face and body language may just confuse things.

This forum is also not set up for therapy, the main focus is outer and inner research, mainly the Work. Nobody is trying to diagnose or profile anybody from what I can see.

I apologise in advance if anyone feels offended by this, I have been considering posting this for sometime , weeks actually, but continually put it off. but in the spirit of the work uncomfortable questions sometimes produce the most worthwhile material post examination.

I'm curious why you would add this disclaimer unless you felt that it would offend somebody? I'm not offended by anything you've said so far, only a little puzzled since it doesn't seem to jive with my own experience here.

So where does our need to box, to diagnose, to come from? False personality? Arrogance? humility? Essence? Genuine Being Knowledge? From our need for safety and comfort in 'knowing'?
Where does our confidence in our ability come from? How do we verify this ability without face to face contact, without sensing each others qualities and emanations first hand?

Steve, I think you have misinterpreted the advise given to you here as profiling, diagnosis, etc. People are merely offering assistance to help you gain self knowledge. We mean no ill will by it, although there is a part of you - the predator - that will always see this advise as insulting, degrading, humiliating, etc. Seeing the inner predator for what it is, forms a big part of the Work here.

 

[anart]

Anart

So by this sentence

One thing that also might be important to realize is that there is an enormous amount of information available to those with eyes to see from the written word. What we write and how we write it speaks literal volumes about our mental, emotional and even physical processes. If one knows how, they can literally 'see the unseen' through the written word - or - at the very least - get a very good general outline.

Are you speaking about your own personal abilities.

Actually, I'm speaking about the network's abilities.

Fwiw. A number of dominoes prompted this,

a couple from memory, there were more.

The personality diagnosis of the person with the avatar with no eyes (i forget the name) who posted on the neanderthal thread.
Did you diagnose this?

The instant reaction to triplethinks first posts today.
Did you diagnose this?

You seem very certain of your own ability , John Bennet writes how Gurdjieff would observe people for some time before deciding how and which work they needed, and Bennet expands on this saying that even after G's close examination he made mistakes with 2 people in Bennets knowledge who almost had breakdowns.

There is a very distinct difference between 'diagnosing' and 'observing'. You are likely quite aware of this difference. This is a working forum where people post for input and that is what we strive to provide with as much objectivity as is humanly possible. It is not impossible to note pathology from forum behavior, as you are likely aware and as was evident in one of the examples listed above. Note that I am not defining the specific pathology, I am stating that pathological behavior is quite clear under certain circumstances. The fact that you seem to have difficulty understanding this simply indicates that you have not had much experience with it in this venue. We have.

Your reaction to the input you have received - input - not diagnoses, Stevie - is very interesting and indicates that you might benefit from questioning your own thinking a bit - questioning the source of your reaction and 'what' is really reacting. I suggest that - if - you are actually interesting in doing the Work.

The fact that you responded to my post with questions about me and not input about your own reaction and state of mind indicates that you are a bit reactive on this subject - again - something worth taking a look at if you are interested.

I'm not very certain of anything, and my abilities are varied and in various stages of growth - what I am quite certain of is the ability of this network to See the unseen, as has been proven consistently over quite a long period of time.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

One thing puzzles me though and it surprises me and continues to surprise me and that is what I can summarise as a tendency towards personality profiling by the written word, by reading posters posts. It surprises me primarily because many of those whom I have read doing the diagnosis thing are obviously well read and I would have expect a certain caution on concluding on a profile , expecially a profile based on a few posts on a forum.
As a therapist of 16 yrs who has daily contact with people I find the most damaging thing I can do for MYSELF and for My CLIENT is to box them in a profile. 'Here's your label ,sorted, thats me sussed you now, now I can stop thinking'. It is something I tried and wanted to be able to do in my first year or two until I realised not only the trap that was being set for both of us but also the arrogance , the over estimation of my abiliy implicit in the assumption that I could understand someone in 2 or 3 sessions, over even worse, the first session.

Steve,

I don't think there is any attempt here to keep profiles; although, people here generally call things like they see them. If one notices a certain pattern of response or behavior that keeps coming up in somebody there are generally people here who will point this out.

Gurdjief says that there are definite Types for people and from what I've seen in my time here, I would agree. There are some people who lean towards one center or the other. There are common emotional programs in people that have common causes. Knowing how others perceive us can lead one to make improvements in managing one's many "Is", OSIT.

So, as I say, I have noticed new posters being boxed and 'tasted' and 'smelled' within three or four posts and would raise some questions which might be useful for self examination, I am applying this post to myself also.

Gurdjieff said that the work was the study of lying. I should have this tatooed in the inside of my eyes so that it is continually in front of me.

the first series of statements:

From Mme De Salzmann:
Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. That this lying rules you to such an extent that you cannot control it any more. You are the prey of lying. You lie, everywhere. Your relations with others—lies. The upbringing you give, the conventions—lies. Your teaching—lies. Your theories, your art—lies. Your social life, your family life—lies. And what you think of yourself—lies also.

So, I continually overestimate myself, I have fight my tendency to lying in the form of over estimating abilities, my lying in terms of wanting to appear smart, of when I read an internet diagnosis I have to fight not to form my own diagnosis of the person doing the diagnosis. Does it ever end?

The way you say this makes it sound futile, like you are too comfortable in your illusions to see yourself as you really are. No, it really doesn't end. All of us here are at one point or another in pealing away the layers of the onion of our own illusions. Nobody is exempt from this.

There you have it, Is it useful to diagnose on internet where there is no way of verifying your conclusions by meeting the diagnosee and getting to know them and updating your model?
Is doing so an over estimation?

Why do you think that seeing somebody's face helps you better diagnose their problems? Some problems reveal themselves quite clearly in the printed word. Face and body language may just confuse things.

This forum is also not set up for therapy, the main focus is outer and inner research, mainly the Work. Nobody is trying to diagnose or profile anybody from what I can see.

I apologise in advance if anyone feels offended by this, I have been considering posting this for sometime , weeks actually, but continually put it off. but in the spirit of the work uncomfortable questions sometimes produce the most worthwhile material post examination.

I'm curious why you would add this disclaimer unless you felt that it would offend somebody? I'm not offended by anything you've said so far, only a little puzzled since it doesn't seem to jive with my own experience here.

So where does our need to box, to diagnose, to come from? False personality? Arrogance? humility? Essence? Genuine Being Knowledge? From our need for safety and comfort in 'knowing'?
Where does our confidence in our ability come from? How do we verify this ability without face to face contact, without sensing each others qualities and emanations first hand?

Steve, I think you have misinterpreted the advise given to you here as profiling, diagnosis, etc. People are merely offering assistance to help you gain self knowledge. We mean no ill will by it, although there is a part of you - the predator - that will always see this advise as insulting, degrading, humiliating, etc. Seeing the inner predator for what it is, forms a big part of the Work here.

Ryan

You have missed the jist of my post. I have not felt insulted, humiliated or anything of the like.

the jist is this

Are we overestimating our abilities?

 

[anart]

You have missed the jist of my post. I have not felt insulted, humiliated or anything of the like.

the jist is this

Are we overestimating our abilities?

Stevie, you would not have started this thread if you were not insulted/humiliated/anything of the like.

You are not asking if 'we' are overestimating our abilities. You are asking if I am overestimating my abilities.

Let's stay on track here. ;)

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Anart

So by this sentence

One thing that also might be important to realize is that there is an enormous amount of information available to those with eyes to see from the written word. What we write and how we write it speaks literal volumes about our mental, emotional and even physical processes. If one knows how, they can literally 'see the unseen' through the written word - or - at the very least - get a very good general outline.

Are you speaking about your own personal abilities.

Actually, I'm speaking about the network's abilities.

Fwiw. A number of dominoes prompted this,

a couple from memory, there were more.

The personality diagnosis of the person with the avatar with no eyes (i forget the name) who posted on the neanderthal thread.
Did you diagnose this?

The instant reaction to triplethinks first posts today.
Did you diagnose this?

You seem very certain of your own ability , John Bennet writes how Gurdjieff would observe people for some time before deciding how and which work they needed, and Bennet expands on this saying that even after G's close examination he made mistakes with 2 people in Bennets knowledge who almost had breakdowns.

There is a very distinct difference between 'diagnosing' and 'observing'. You are likely quite aware of this difference. This is a working forum where people post for input and that is what we strive to provide with as much objectivity as is humanly possible. It is not impossible to note pathology from forum behavior, as you are likely aware and as was evident in one of the examples listed above. Note that I am not defining the specific pathology, I am stating that pathological behavior is quite clear under certain circumstances. The fact that you seem to have difficulty understanding this simply indicates that you have not had much experience with it in this venue. We have.

Your reaction to the input you have received - input - not diagnoses, Stevie - is very interesting and indicates that you might benefit from questioning your own thinking a bit - questioning the source of your reaction and 'what' is really reacting. I suggest that - if - you are actually interesting in doing the Work.

The fact that you responded to my post with questions about me and not input about your own reaction and state of mind indicates that you are a bit reactive on this subject - again - something worth taking a look at if you are interested.

I'm not very certain of anything, and my abilities are varied and in various stages of growth - what I am quite certain of is the ability of this network to See the unseen, as has been proven consistently over quite a long period of time.

Anart

The fact that you responded to my post with questions about me and not input about your own reaction and state of mind indicates that you are a bit reactive on this subject - again - something worth taking a look at if you are interested.

Check your first reply to my post, It was all about your observation of me and nothing about you.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

You have missed the jist of my post. I have not felt insulted, humiliated or anything of the like.

the jist is this

Are we overestimating our abilities?

Stevie, you would not have started this thread if you were not insulted/humiliated/anything of the like.

You are not asking if 'we' are overestimating our abilities. You are asking if I am overestimating my abilities.

Let's stay on track here. ;)

This is telepathy/ crystal ball gazing and well you know it :)

but will you admit it to yourself ??

 

[Stevie Argyl]

So far out of the first 2 replies to my post No one who answered the first time actually admitted to ever estimating themselves.

An observation, no attempt at diagnosis is made so I ask for information from those who replied.

Did you think I was offended or outraged and thats why I posted?
Was it important to 'fix me' rather than examine 'you'

 

[ana]

[quote author=Stevie]
Was it important to 'fix me' rather than examine 'you'
[/quote]
We are not fixing you, we are observing, are you observing yourself too?

 

[Stevie Argyl]

[quote author=Stevie]
Was it important to 'fix me' rather than examine 'you'

We are not fixing you, we are observing, are you observing yourself too?


[/quote]

Yes ! work is work on oneself after all.

I am also observing everyone's tendency to focus on me.

And I continue to observe that no one is paying attention to the real question of over estimation of abilities.

 

[anart]

Check your first reply to my post, It was all about your observation of me and nothing about you.

I'm afraid you lost me there.

This is telepathy/ crystal ball gazing and well you know it Smiley

Not even close. Stevie, just because you do not understand how something works does not mean that it does not work.

So far out of the first 2 replies to my post No one who answered the first time actually admitted to ever estimating themselves.

Had I thought that you were sincerely asking that question and not posting in order to accuse because what was mentioned to you made you uncomfortable, I might have answered the question. It's just such an elementary question, that I don't see much point in it, however. Of course, everyone on the planet overestimates themselves. We are human, it's part of what we do. If we didn't, we'd likely never have gotten out of bed on the first day of kindergarten. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the observation of you that prompted this thread and your responses in this thread.

An observation, no attempt at diagnosis is made so I ask for information from those who replied.

Did you think I was offended or outraged and thats why I posted?
Was it important to 'fix me' rather than examine 'you'

You're a little hard to follow in the above as well - but I'll try to answer. No one - to my understanding - is trying to 'fix' you. That's never the point. Your turning the attention onto others is a rather classic maneuver to avoid the subject, however. Stevie, it's really not that threatening a concept that you might - just might - at times - over intellectualize, and intellectualize your emotional processes. Why does that idea threaten you so?

 

[anart]

[quote author=Stevie]
Was it important to 'fix me' rather than examine 'you'

We are not fixing you, we are observing, are you observing yourself too?

Yes ! work is work on oneself after all.

I am also observing everyone's tendency to focus on me.

And I continue to observe that no one is paying attention to the real question of over estimation of abilities.
[/quote]

That's likely because that was never the real question.

Sincerely ask yourself this: If I hadn't mentioned that you appear to intellectualize your emotional processes, would you have written this thread?

Was this thread not a reaction to my observation?

Was this thread not phrased in such a way to be able to suggest that I, for no reason at all, use a crystal ball, as you put it, to make observations about people that are inappropriate?

It would have been more sincere of you to post in the original thread something like, "anart, I think you have no right to say such a thing about me because you don't know me and you don't know what you're talking about". That would have been sincere. Instead you start a thread that vaguely masks your irritation and offense at having something pointed out to you, and then progress to insist it was done so just to ask a hypothetical question that is so obvious it needs no asking.