Telepathy and Distant Personality Diagnosis

[Renaissance]

I just read this thread after posting a response to Stevie in Oxajil's thread. I have to say it is a little jarring to see how the parallels in the two threads are not at all recognized by you, Stevie. More surprising is that you think you are being sincere. The title of the thread contains 'telepathy' in it. So your sincerely wondering if 'members' use telepathy in their observations of people? Really?

 

[okiron]

You know just reading the subject title, "Telepathy and Distant Personality Diagnosis" brings lots of questions, well, it did for me. Just to list some of those; is the poster suggesting Telepathic ability is somehow responsible in forming DISTANT Personality Diagnosis?? IF this is what he/she believes or doesn't believe, than why post the subject matter in the first place?...unless he/she is waiting for someone to actually confess that one has such an ability? Let's just say, this is so. Than what would be the motive?...to disclaim such ability through Gurdjieff's quotes?...or is the poster claiming his/her ability to Diagnosis? Is it a possibility that the poster relates "Telepathy" associates with emotion, while Diagnosis associates with the intellect? mmm it seems the more I bring myself to ask questions, I suppose the answer just might reveal itself through observation or in this case, the progression of the dialog of the subject matter. Interesting.
Just sharing my thoughts on the subject.

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=Stevie]
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'.[/quote]


Hi Stevie. I'm sure you are aware of how people tend to evaluate input from a familiar frame of reference? I think the following summary from
this post, makes the point quite well:

Each of the parties involved in this case approached it from its own frame of reference. To psychiatrists, Rob Doe suffered from mental illness. To priests this was a case of demonic possession. To writers and film/video producers this was a great story to exploit for profit. Those involved saw what they were trained to see. Each purported to look at the facts but just the opposite was true—in actuality they manipulated the facts and emphasized information that fit their own agendas.

Considering your 16 years of Therapy experience and some of the 'crazy making' that goes on in some 'therapeutic' settings, could you have some unconscious fears of being mis-diagnosed and mistreated yourself?

Al Siebert, PhD, summed up what I mean in "Psychiatry's Lack of Insight":

1)
The horror for many people forced to submit to psychiatric treatments is that they encounter extreme double-binds from mental health practitioners who lack insight into their mixed messages.

The first double-bind has to do with a belief held by many psychiatrists that before treatment can start, the patient must accept the fact that he or she is mentally ill.

The "You Must Believe You Are Mentally Ill" double-bind in it's pure form occurs when the person is told, "Because you believe that people are trying to force thoughts into your mind, you must now accept into your mind the thought that you are mentally ill."

Although this psychiatric practice has never been researched, it is common for mental patients to hear such messages. In their book How to Live with Schizophrenia, psychiatrists Abram Hoffer and Humphry Osmond state to "the schizophrenic" reading the book: "As a patient, you have a grave responsibility to yourself and to your family to get well. You will have no problem if you are convinced that you are ill. But no matter what you think, you must do all you can to accept the statement of your doctor that you are ill..."

2)
The second double-bind is in the assertion to patients that all the actions being taken are entirely for his or her own good. As Ron found out with his family, when he upset them by confronting them with their selfishness, their reaction was to regard his thinking as crazy. They were convinced they were unselfish people who only had his best interests in mind. Unfortunately for mental patients, they encounter the same blind hypocrisy in psychiatric facilities.

The second, "We're Doing This for Your Own Good," double-bind comes from self-deceptive efforts to maintain the illusion that the actions taken to remove, eliminate, or "cure" people of undesirable thoughts and feelings are entirely unselfish.

3)
The third double-bind is to perceive someone as being "a schizophrenic" and then express humanitarian love and compassion for them.

An example of the "Love for Schizophrenics" double-bind can be found in Torrey's recommendations on "How to Behave Toward a Schizophrenic." He states, "In general, the people who get along best with schizophrenics are those who treat them most naturally as people."

Silvano Arieti is a leading authority on schizophrenia. In concluding his award winning book Understanding and Helping the Schizophrenic: A Guidebook for Family and Friends, he states: "...where modern psychiatric science and our hearts meet, is the place in which help for the schizophrenic is to be found..."

The experience of people viewed as schizophrenic is something like being told by a smiling, powerful authority "I have only love and compassion for rotten assholes like you."

4)
The fourth double-bind. The bizarreness of the three double-binds described above can lead to a fourth. The sequence of mixed messages that throw supposedly schizophrenic people into a living nightmare goes as follows:

1. "You must accept into your mind our assertion that you are mentally ill because you believe that people are trying to force thoughts into your mind."
2. "You must believe our self-deceptive statements that we are not acting selfishly when we force you to submit to treatment that you don't want. You must believe we are doing this to you only for your own good."
3. "You must believe that we are acting out of love and compassion for the undesirable thing you are."
4. If a person protests about any of the above and tells the therapy staff they are the crazy ones, the fourth double-bind message is: "Your claim that we are crazy and harming you proves how really mentally ill you are. You are so sick you lack insight and don't appreciate the help we are offering to you."


Conclusions

Observations of what is said to patients in psychiatric facilities reveal that traditional psychiatric practices subject patients to four major double-binds.

When one looks with empathy at what people regarded as schizophrenic experience in psychiatric facilities, it is no surprise that treatment efforts are so ineffective and that patients react as they do. Withdrawal, deterioration of social functioning, and saying things that the staff experience as delusional are legitimate, valid responses to the mixed, double-bind messages the patients receive.

The current situation in hospital psychiatry is similar to what Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis discovered when he saw that hospital physicians were the carriers of deadly infections from one pregnant woman to the next. The physicians scoffed and ridiculed Semmelweis because their intentions were to help women, not kill them.

In the same way, hospital psychiatrists ridicule suggestions that they act in ways that worsen and maintain the mental conditions they claim they want to cure. The lack of insight in modern psychiatry is more extreme than the lack of insight in patients.
Source: _http://www.successfulschizophrenia.org/articles/dblbinds.html

It would be understandable for you to have these concerns/unconscious fears considering your line of work and the patient care you've already expressed. Of course, being in the Work, it would be unacceptable to let them remain so.

Then again, if I'm barking up the wrong tree, please let me know.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

I just read this thread after posting a response to Stevie in Oxajil's thread. I have to say it is a little jarring to see how the parallels in the two threads are not at all recognized by you, Stevie. More surprising is that you think you are being sincere. The title of the thread contains 'telepathy' in it. So your sincerely wondering if 'members' use telepathy in their observations of people? Really?

Shane, Telepathy was Hyperbole, for a Wake up Shock, to make people sit up and think. To ask ' am i not attributing some sort of telepathic power to myself when I can conclude on someones personality by a fragmet of their output? Am I not over estimating my powers when I do so?'

Its like the Elephant in the Dark.

A king has the blind men of the capital brought to the palace, where an elephant is brought in and they are asked to describe it.

"When the blind men had each felt a part of the elephant, the king went to each of them and said to each: 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?"

The men assert the elephant is either like a pot (the blind man who felt the elephants' head), a winnowing basket (ear), a plowshare (tusk), a plow (trunk), a granary (body), a pillar (foot), a mortar (back), a pestle (tail) or a brush (tip of the tail).

The men cannot agree with one another and come to blows over the question of what it is like and their dispute delights the king. The Buddha ends the story by comparing the six blind men to preachers and scholars who are blind and ignorant and hold to their own views: "Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus." The Buddha then speaks the following verse:

O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing


Even if all the blind men agreed that the elephants head is a pot, it wouldn't make it true.

The internet is the room, our limited perceptions conmtribute to our blindness, and our obseravations taken as truth might be a pot and not a head, a winnowing basket and not an ear.


I find myself making judgements about peoples personality when i read their posts and I have to continually remind myself that i am only seeing a part and that I am not omniscient, that I am seeing an ear and calling it an elephant.


Now this is the point I was making, but no ones seems to want to consider the idea that they might be blind or even partially sighted, they rather insist that they have 20/20 vision.




Everyone thinks his own thinking is perfect and that his child is the most beautiful.
Saadi. The Gulistan.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

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?

Steve, I understood your post, but I was reading the language behind it instead of just taking your words at face value. My observation was that your post had nothing to do with asking a sincere question. If you wanted to ask a sincere question, you would not have phrased in a disclaimer about others possibly being offended. It appeared that there was something lurking beneath the surface of your words from the way you wrote your post.

This isn't any sort of telepathy on my part, just an observation based on my own personal experience. There have been times when I've thought in the same manner that you've written here. My only advise would be to take some time to relax and think about everything people have said here and try to consider all the observations people have made. There might be some worthwhile lesson hidden in all of this. I may be off, but this is just what I'm seeing, FWIW.

Ryan
Your post is appreciated, thanks

 

[Stevie Argyl]

[quote author=Stevie]
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'.

Hi Stevie. I'm sure you are aware of how people tend to evaluate input from a familiar frame of reference? I think the following summary from
this post, makes the point quite well:

Each of the parties involved in this case approached it from its own frame of reference. To psychiatrists, Rob Doe suffered from mental illness. To priests this was a case of demonic possession. To writers and film/video producers this was a great story to exploit for profit. Those involved saw what they were trained to see. Each purported to look at the facts but just the opposite was true—in actuality they manipulated the facts and emphasized information that fit their own agendas.

Considering your 16 years of Therapy experience and some of the 'crazy making' that goes on in some 'therapeutic' settings, could you have some unconscious fears of being mis-diagnosed and mistreated yourself?

Al Siebert, PhD, summed up what I mean in "Psychiatry's Lack of Insight":

1)
The horror for many people forced to submit to psychiatric treatments is that they encounter extreme double-binds from mental health practitioners who lack insight into their mixed messages.

The first double-bind has to do with a belief held by many psychiatrists that before treatment can start, the patient must accept the fact that he or she is mentally ill.

The "You Must Believe You Are Mentally Ill" double-bind in it's pure form occurs when the person is told, "Because you believe that people are trying to force thoughts into your mind, you must now accept into your mind the thought that you are mentally ill."

Although this psychiatric practice has never been researched, it is common for mental patients to hear such messages. In their book How to Live with Schizophrenia, psychiatrists Abram Hoffer and Humphry Osmond state to "the schizophrenic" reading the book: "As a patient, you have a grave responsibility to yourself and to your family to get well. You will have no problem if you are convinced that you are ill. But no matter what you think, you must do all you can to accept the statement of your doctor that you are ill..."

2)
The second double-bind is in the assertion to patients that all the actions being taken are entirely for his or her own good. As Ron found out with his family, when he upset them by confronting them with their selfishness, their reaction was to regard his thinking as crazy. They were convinced they were unselfish people who only had his best interests in mind. Unfortunately for mental patients, they encounter the same blind hypocrisy in psychiatric facilities.

The second, "We're Doing This for Your Own Good," double-bind comes from self-deceptive efforts to maintain the illusion that the actions taken to remove, eliminate, or "cure" people of undesirable thoughts and feelings are entirely unselfish.

3)
The third double-bind is to perceive someone as being "a schizophrenic" and then express humanitarian love and compassion for them.

An example of the "Love for Schizophrenics" double-bind can be found in Torrey's recommendations on "How to Behave Toward a Schizophrenic." He states, "In general, the people who get along best with schizophrenics are those who treat them most naturally as people."

Silvano Arieti is a leading authority on schizophrenia. In concluding his award winning book Understanding and Helping the Schizophrenic: A Guidebook for Family and Friends, he states: "...where modern psychiatric science and our hearts meet, is the place in which help for the schizophrenic is to be found..."

The experience of people viewed as schizophrenic is something like being told by a smiling, powerful authority "I have only love and compassion for rotten -bad people- like you."

4)
The fourth double-bind. The bizarreness of the three double-binds described above can lead to a fourth. The sequence of mixed messages that throw supposedly schizophrenic people into a living nightmare goes as follows:

1. "You must accept into your mind our assertion that you are mentally ill because you believe that people are trying to force thoughts into your mind."
2. "You must believe our self-deceptive statements that we are not acting selfishly when we force you to submit to treatment that you don't want. You must believe we are doing this to you only for your own good."
3. "You must believe that we are acting out of love and compassion for the undesirable thing you are."
4. If a person protests about any of the above and tells the therapy staff they are the crazy ones, the fourth double-bind message is: "Your claim that we are crazy and harming you proves how really mentally ill you are. You are so sick you lack insight and don't appreciate the help we are offering to you."


Conclusions

Observations of what is said to patients in psychiatric facilities reveal that traditional psychiatric practices subject patients to four major double-binds.

When one looks with empathy at what people regarded as schizophrenic experience in psychiatric facilities, it is no surprise that treatment efforts are so ineffective and that patients react as they do. Withdrawal, deterioration of social functioning, and saying things that the staff experience as delusional are legitimate, valid responses to the mixed, double-bind messages the patients receive.

The current situation in hospital psychiatry is similar to what Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis discovered when he saw that hospital physicians were the carriers of deadly infections from one pregnant woman to the next. The physicians scoffed and ridiculed Semmelweis because their intentions were to help women, not kill them.

In the same way, hospital psychiatrists ridicule suggestions that they act in ways that worsen and maintain the mental conditions they claim they want to cure. The lack of insight in modern psychiatry is more extreme than the lack of insight in patients.
Source: _http://www.successfulschizophrenia.org/articles/dblbinds.html

It would be understandable for you to have these concerns/unconscious fears considering your line of work and the patient care you've already expressed. Of course, being in the Work, it would be unacceptable to let them remain so.

Then again, if I'm barking up the wrong tree, please let me know.
[/quote]

Thanks Bud

My 16 years wasn't in therapy, it is in practice in bodywork and hypnosis. I have had experience of Alexander Lowen bodywork - but there were no projections made there ,it isnt a talky therapy,its more a physical technique where trapped emotions are released via posture and breathing and occasionally deep tissue manipulation. The deep breathing incorporated into EE comes from Riechien/Lowen Bioenergetic therapy situation.

 

[truth seeker]

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'?

I'll just speak for myself here. I don't find a need to diagnose anyone. What is important to me however is having some knowledge of a person or situation so that I can have some idea of how to proceed accordingly. This is not just on this forum but in my everyday life as well. This can help with a couple of things. It can offer protection from people that may be potentially dangerous (physically or emotionally). One example is if I'm on the street and someone is acting in a manner that I perceive to be harmful. I may then take necessary measures to remove myself. Now while one may ask how I know someone is dangerous, to me, I have to put that aside for the time being as my personal safety comes first.

Another benefit that comes from evaluating a situation based on how someone acts or what they say is that I am more aware of what it is that I can say to one person versus another. If I find that I'm in a relationship with someone and through speaking with them several times I see that they don't like to talk about things that are painful or upset them, I may stop speaking to them about those subjects or try to do so more gently.

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?

I don't know that I would call it confidence. The best way I can describe it is that it's a pattern that is picked up on. It's not much different than the patterns I pick up on with people I speak with briefly or have known for years. In my opinion, people generally present the same/similar way on the forum as they do in real life - that is unless they are presenting a false front and even then I may see something because the information doesn't match up. If we take for granted that people are being their everyday self, why should this be any different than how they are in real life?

After seeing these patterns (in general) for a while, it can become easier and quicker in determining "types". One of the things that really helped to clarify some patterns was the narcissism books. You (the general use) can then start to see that we are not so different from each other.

In reference to your question concerning verifying this ability without face to face contact. One can easily reply upon said face to face contact that "You don't really know me." If we take that further, as in knowing someone for a number of years, the reply given might be "Your wrong. You don't know what you're talking about!" How far does it go? When do we really know someone? The answer may be never. The point however (to me) is when do we take the information we have (which is ever changing) and make a choice?

How well do you know your patients? At what point to you say to yourself, "I have enough information now so that I can do what is necessary to help them."? Even after doing all this, there may come a point where you second guess yourself. While there are no patients on the forum - this is not what we do here - perhaps this clarifies what I'm getting at. Hope that answers some of your questions. :)

 

[Stevie Argyl]

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'?

I'll just speak for my self here. I don't find a need to diagnose anyone. What is important to me however is having some knowledge of a person or situation so that I can have some idea of how to proceed accordingly. This is not just on this forum but in my everyday life as well. This can help with a couple of things. It can offer protection from people that may be potentially dangerous (physically or emotionally). One example is if I'm on the street and someone is acting in a manner that I perceive to be harmful. I may then take necessary measures to remove myself. Now while one may ask how I know someone is dangerous, to me, I have to put that aside for the time being as my personal safety comes first.

Another benefit that comes from evaluating a situation based on how someone acts or what they say is that I am more aware of what it is that I can say to one person versus another. If I find that I'm in a relationship with someone and through speaking with them several times I see that they don't like to talk about things that are painful or upset them, I may stop speaking to them about those subjects or try to do so more gently.

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?

I don't know that I would call it confidence. The best way I can describe it is that it's a pattern that is picked up on. It's not much different than the patterns I pick up on with people I speak with briefly or have known for years. In my opinion, people generally present the same/similar way on the forum as they do in real life - that is unless they are presenting a false front and even then I may see something because the information doesn't match up. If we take for granted that people are being their everyday self, why should this be any different than how they are in real life?

After seeing these patterns (in general) for a while, it can become easier and quicker in determining "types". One of the things that really helped to clarify some patterns was the narcissism books. You (the general use) can then start to see that we are not so different from each other.

In reference to your question concerning verifying this ability without face to face contact. One can easily reply upon said face to face contact that "You don't really know me." If we take that further, as in knowing someone for a number of years, the reply given might be "Your wrong. You don't know what you're talking about!" How far does it go? When do we really know someone? The answer may be never. The point however (to me) is when do we take the information we have (which is ever changing) and make a choice?

How well do you know your patients? At what point to you say to yourself, "I have enough information now so that I can do what is necessary to help them."? Even after doing all this, there may come a point where you second guess yourself. While there are no patients on the forum - this is not what we do here - perhaps this clarifies what I'm getting at. Hope that answers some of your questions. :)

Thanks TS

Appreciated.

 

[tykes]

So now I am manipulative ?
when my intention was to post something to post on self examination

Mr. Premise clearly says:

For example, I think you made a manipulative statement. That doesn't mean I think you are a manipulative person. Or that you are any more manipulative than most any of us are because of how we had to go about surviving in a pathological world.

And...

So I restate that observations are sometimes posted in a definitive manner.
In the form of 'You do / you are / you think' rather than 'You seem to do , it looks like you are , do you think?'

Actually Anart´s first reply to your post starts this way:

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?

If you do some navigation through the forum you will find that practically every observation is made in that form.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

So now I am manipulative ?
when my intention was to post something to post on self examination

Mr. Premise clearly says:

For example, I think you made a manipulative statement. That doesn't mean I think you are a manipulative person. Or that you are any more manipulative than most any of us are because of how we had to go about surviving in a pathological world.

And...

So I restate that observations are sometimes posted in a definitive manner.
In the form of 'You do / you are / you think' rather than 'You seem to do , it looks like you are , do you think?'

Actually Anart´s first reply to your post starts this way:

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?

If you do some navigation through the forum you will find that practically every observation is made in that form.

Tykes

if you re-read the statement you posted it starts with 'sounds like' then continues in the definitive.

That wasn't the statement that prompted the post, nor was the thread that Anart referred to the sole reason for the topic it was a contributing factor that added to an accumulation of observations that people seem to be confident in their own ability to read others via the internet.

As most replies go off topic then perhaps its better that I ask each poster directly.

How confident are you that your observations of a personality gleaned from reading a poster will be correct.?
Do you margin error?
Do you hold in mind that previous conclusions that you make become the basis for future conclusions?
Do you hold in mind that once you have concluded and then move to testing via meeting that previous conclusions may influence the perceptions/conclusions/projections made in the meeting?

In other words are you careful what you conclude and hold in mind that you may well be wrong and have to modify, or do you say 'I understand X, they are like this'

 

[truth seeker]

As most replies go off topic then perhaps its better that I ask each poster directly.

How confident are you that your observations of a personality gleaned from reading a poster will be correct.?
Do you margin error?
Do you hold in mind that previous conclusions that you make become the basis for future conclusions?
Do you hold in mind that once you have concluded and then move to testing via meeting that previous conclusions may influence the perceptions/conclusions/projections made in the meeting?

In other words are you careful what you conclude and hold in mind that you may well be wrong and have to modify, or do you say 'I understand X, they are like this'

For the first question, I wouldn't use the word confident. To me, that implies that I am absolutely sure which I'm not. That being said, I do my best to assess a situation carefully. Each person is seen as an individual, even though there are patterns I may perceive. In general, and I'll tentatively speak for others here, when we pose questions, we try to carefully formulate them in order to gain more information to see where that person is - thought processes, how they think, feel and react.

Do you margin error?

Again, replying for myself, I do my best to. I am constantly second guessing myself.

Do you hold in mind that previous conclusions that you make become the basis for future conclusions?

Not sure if you mean that my previous conclusions become the basis for my own future conclusions or for others (meaning forum members)or both. If it's the first, then yes, I try to not let past conclusions color future conclusions if that person is showing that they are genuinely trying. I'll give the benefit of the doubt. I will add however, that many times past behavior can be a good indicator of present and future behavior if there are no measures taken to change.

Do you hold in mind that once you have concluded and then move to testing via meeting that previous conclusions may influence the perceptions/conclusions/projections made in the meeting?

When you say "testing via meeting", do you mean in real life? If so, I would say that while this may play a role, the meeting might give a fuller understanding of that person. This would depend on whether that person was hiding/withholding something. If not, I would say that there is nothing for that person to be concerned about.

In other words are you careful what you conclude and hold in mind that you may well be wrong and have to modify, or do you say 'I understand X, they are like this'

I think the "conclusion" is rarely final with the possible exception of those who have continuously shown that they have no interest in "playing well with others". For the majority, this is not really an issue. For the majority, it's much like what any of us would do when meeting people face to face for the first time - you're friendly, give the benefit of the doubt that they mean you no harm and keep your eyes open just in case.

I think it's always important to keep in mind that you may be wrong about anything. This is what we are attempting to do on this forum. There is always the thought (for most people) that they may be incorrect in their assessments and by extension, choices/actions. To say "I understand X, they are like this." to me prevents either person from having the opportunity to learn and grow. It is essentially giving up on someone completely. Even with those who in the past have been banned for whatever reason (whether because of trolling, undergoing mental/emotional issues that we are not qualified to deal with or some other reason), the door is never completely closed to them. There is always a way back if they choose to take it.

 

[Keit]

How confident are you that your observations of a personality gleaned from reading a poster will be correct.?
Do you margin error?
Do you hold in mind that previous conclusions that you make become the basis for future conclusions?
Do you hold in mind that once you have concluded and then move to testing via meeting that previous conclusions may influence the perceptions/conclusions/projections made in the meeting?

In other words are you careful what you conclude and hold in mind that you may well be wrong and have to modify, or do you say 'I understand X, they are like this'

Hi Stevie,

I don't know you in person, and it is highly probable that both of us are very different people with their own set of life experiences. But I do recognize a similar pattern, where you (or part of you that is in control of your actions at the moment) use indirect (and thus, dishonest and manipulative) methods to express what you really feel. I did things like this also toward Anart among many other people. The rest are just intellectualized justifications to disguise what is going on inside you on an emotional level.

How about at least being honest with yourself and admitting that you are angry? Angry at Anart for exposing you like this? I am not saying exposing your predator, because at the moment, and until you make a conscious choice to differentiate the two, you are quite interconnected, especially through your actions. Don't go there, Stevie. All this explaining and intellectualizing is just BS that acts against you and causes you to lash out toward others, Anart in this case, instead of recognizing the pain, the emotion, and giving yourself an opportunity to become a little bit more real.

You wrote:

Say just now, I am sitting here and say I take this personally, the accusation that I had of posting a manipulative post. If I got upset and feeling arose and the blood pumped I could rush straight into posting insults , accusations etc - That is an attempt at 'self calming' I would post and post to discharge the emotional energy that my system couldnt handle.

As Kniall mentioned, even if you wrote it in conditional tense, it is also my observation that this is exactly what happened. You took it personally. You were and are angry. And instead of sharing it in a direct way by asking Anart how dare she making such statements without really knowing you, you chose to project the pain and make a manipulative attempt in hurting her, even if oh so indirectly by presenting it as an intellectual debate out of concern toward others.

And no, I am not attacking you or completely sure that this is what is going on inside you, just make an observation based on experience because this was (and probably still is ) exactly my mop. Regardless of Anart or anyone else toward whom you direct this anger, do you realize that you are your worst enemy and mostly hurt yourself here? It doesn't mean that you are not a kind person with good qualities. But you chose a manipulative way to dump your emotions on others instead of owning them and giving yourself an opportunity to become whole. It doesn't matter if Anart or someone else were right or wrong, what matters is how you choose to respond to it.

edit:spelling

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Deflections according to Law.

The 'Do' of the octave of interest in personality diagnosis.

someone called Ronin posts , ages ago, it is provocative post, a poking a stick post.
I wonder 'whats his intention here, he is immedialtely disrespectful, what is his need?'

soon his personality is discussed back to his grandma.

He reveals himself as a college student investigating cults - I still don't know if thats true or not, I haven't concluded. Was he a shill sent by someone else? I dont know I haven't concluded.
Was he disrespectful - Yes - he threw unfounded accusations.
Were these his own doing or was he a sucker put up to it? I have no idea.

then blackronin appears - I wondered 'similar name, same guy?'

same thing and at the end of the day I have no idea of the motivations or external agencies if any are involved.

These were the more provocative ones who had personalities labelled over net.

The avatar with no eyes - again mischevious and you wonder what the point is of someone coming on to the net to post stuff.

I stick at wondering, others decide they 'know'

a few more lesser non mischiif non provocative but similar personality profiles later and I wonder whether to post and ask folk if they think they consider themselves capable of nailing a persons motive in the space of a few postsetc

This is the start of a new Do - wondering about action - will people be upset when they are thrown back at themselves and asked to examine their beliefs? would it be useful? Will it just be ignored?

A week ago I post something and Anart diagnoses that I intellectualise my emotions when the process I describe is one of staying in the emotion in the moment. Iread it, explain back, leave it.

Yesterday a new poster appears, triplethink, and he says he has had 6d contact
maybe he has, maybe he hasnt. He posts about it I wonder why, I wonder where is his post going what comes next ? does he want questions? etc
Not long before he is judged.

The I post a bit from beelzebub tales about emotion + work and the work being a 3 centered practice.
This is somehow 'proof' that I intellectualise my emotions. I don't see others posting from the big 5 as proof they intellectualising their emotion but merely trying to assist understanding.

So I ponder. Should I post this now? It seems a good question to bring up , this profiling by internet post thing.
I consider that it may meet resisistance, rejection or even be ignored , people may wiseacre but I conclude that it is a worthwhile topic to post.

Do
the post is made, the topic is out there and subject to the law of hazard

Will the topic stay on track or will divert.

Posters see topic

the decision is made to read
New Do of their octave
it proceeds to the point of question harnel aoout the disharmonised 5th stopinder, the point of trial and temptation, the point where the process can continue inward or can divert outward continually. This is the point where effort is required to stay on track.

As put in Beelzebubs tales.
“As regards the third Stopinder, then changed in its
’subjective action’ and which is fifth in the general successiveness
and is called ‘Harnel-Aoot,’ its disharmony
flowed by itself from the change of the two aforementioned
Stopinders.
“This disharmony in its subjective functioning, flowing
from its asymmetry so to say in relation to the whole entire
completing process of the sacred Heptaparaparshinokh,
consists in the following:
“If the completing process of this sacred law flows in
conditions, where during its process there are many ‘extraneously-
caused-vibrations,’ then all its functioning
gives only external results.
“But if this same process proceeds in absolute quiet without
any external ‘extraneously-caused-vibrations’ whatsoever,
then all the results of the action of its functioning
remain within that concentration in which it completes
its process, and for the outside, these results only become
evident on direct and immediate contact with it.
“And if however during its functioning there are neither
of these two sharply opposite conditions, then the results
of the action of its process usually divide themselves into
the external and the internal.


That is the moment where work is done.

The first mechanical shock is breathing air - automatic. or in the case of reading posts - eye movement and word translation - automatic
The second shock necessitates conscious action - pondering, fathoming the gist. do I look at myself 'in absolute quiet' and contain the energy (inner work). Do I look outside and disperse the energy? Or do I do both ?.

Or when in emotional turmoil - 'sitting in the fire' not supressing , not intellectualising. siting at the point of harnel aoot ,the point of disorganisation and not dispersing or self calming.
Is that not the work? The second conscious shock. intentional suffering with attention on process rather than outside process . rather than fleeing to explanations, self calming, distractions.

So once again, I do not feel attacked, belittled, embarassed, angry, but I am now getting a bit frustrated having to continually pull the topic back to topic and continually going over the same ground.

 

[Oxajil]

The question was sincere and I hoped that it would be useful and perhaps prompt discussion of whether we can or cannot diagnose personality remotely, but no one seems to doubts their ability. So the post has prompted discussion, Just not the one I expected. I would have thought the other discussion might have been a more useful exchange, but it has not happened.
I have nver met you Anart, I like the cut of your internet jib, but have no idea what you are like away from the computer, whether you yell at your kids if you have them or whther you are short tempered , even tempered, lovely nature :)

Do you get where I am coming from?
I dont really know any one on the forum after 4 months. I know how people 'seem' I do not know how the 'are'.
Is this my lack of perceptive ability or is it my recognition that I aint seeing the whole package in a forum post?

If you don't know how they 'are', why don't you do more reading and observing then, before posting? Because when you are part of this forum and you refuse or don't want to understand the idea of having a mirror presented to you, or the idea of the Fourth Way even, then why are you participating? Who do you want to learn from if you don't ''trust'' anybody here (as in, the moderators)? You do know that Gurdjieff said that you cannot do the Work alone, you need those who are experienced. Or don't you want any mirrors presented to you? Are you here to just share information? Maybe you are not interested in doing the Work?

And you know, I also don't know who these people are, but I can observe and from this observation I have concluded for myself that many of these people are sincere in doing the Work, I don't know how they are at home or at work etc. all I know is that they are helping people here, and it shows. And my conclusions don't stand still, they can change any moment, doubt will always be present.

And the moderators here are a little more experienced, so that's why I listen to them and see if I can learn anything new. And when I do, there might be others who might learn from me.

Also read this post by Laura: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2282.msg14040#msg14040

And I honestly think you should start reading the Psychology books instead of Beelzebub or read the Wave if you haven't yet. I also had a period in which I was totally into this very difficult understandable book. And anart's question to me then made me think that perhaps I should focus on something else, and I did and did not regret.

added: I am also wondering in what kind of the-Work-environment you think one is able to know exactly how a person is.

 

[ana]

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.

From the Cassiopedia

In 4th Way discourse, this refers to emotions taking over the functions of thinking. The intellectual center may be taken over by emotions and can be used to construct arguments for defending some decision purely based on emotions.

Such 'thinking' is not affected by arguments appealing to reason. The intellectual center is isolated from these by a sort of wall formed by the emotional investment in one's belief. In the event of a long standing practice this can form buffers. Emotional thinking is an example of the wrong work of centers.

In 4th Way psychology, a buffer is a sort of thought-proof compartmentalization of the mind. The term comes from the buffers which absorb shocks between railroad cars. Buffers make it possible for man to ignore almost anything and generally serve to keep one living in subjectivity.

Repeated denial of facts may over time create a buffer. For example, buffers make it possible for one to apply entirely different principles of ethics to different groups of people.

Getting rid of buffers is an aim of the Work. However, buffers should not be deleted too quickly, even if they could, since some are necessary for survival, at least until one's internal constitution is strengthened enough to withstand reality without the dampening effect of buffers.

Receiving shocks without the mental anesthetic of buffers facilitates fusion and formation of a consistent I.

(In Search of the Miraculous, pp. 154-5.)

"You often think in a very naive way," he (Gurdjieff) said. "You already think you can do. To get rid of this conviction is more difficult than anything else for a man. You do not understand all the complexity of your organization and you do not realize that every effort, in addition to the results desired, even if it gives these, gives thousands of unexpected and often undersirable results, and the chief thing that you forget is that you are not beginning from the beginning with a nice, clean, new machine. There stand behind you many years of wrong and stupid life, of indulgence in every kind of weakness, of shutting your eyes to your own errors, of striving to avoid all unpleasant truths, of constant lying to yourselves, of self-justification, of blaming others, and so on, and so on. All this cannot help affecting the machine. The machine is dirty, in places it is rusty, and in some places artificial appliances have been formed, the necessity for which has been created by its own wrong way of working.

"These artificial appliances will now interfere very much with all your good intentions. "They are called 'buffers.'

"'Buffer' is a term which requires special explanation. We know what buffers on railway carriages are. They are the contrivances which lessen the shock when carriages or trucks strike one another. If there were no buffers, the shock of one carriage against another would be very unpleasant and dangerous. Buffers soften the results of these shocks and render them unnoticeable and imperceptible.

"Exactly the same appliances are to be found within man. They are created, not by nature but by man himself, although involuntarily. The cause of their appearance is the existence in man of many contradictions; contradictions of opinions, feelings, sympathies, words, and actions. If a man throughout the whole of his life were to feel all the contradictions that are within him he could not live and act as calmly as he lives and acts now. He would have constant friction, constant unrest. We fail to see how contradictory and hostile the different I's of our personality are to one another. If a man were to feel all these contradictions he would feel what he really is. He would feel that he is mad. It is not pleasant to anyone to feel that he is mad. Moreover, a thought such as this deprives a man of self confidence, weakens his energy, deprives him of his 'self-respect.' Somehow or other he must master this thought or banish it. He must either destroy the contradictions or cease to see and to feel them. A man cannot destroy contradictions. But if 'buffers' are created in him he can cease to feel them and he will not feel the impact from the clash of contradictory views, contradictory emotions, contradictory words. "'Buffers' are created slowly and gradually. Very many 'buffers' are created artificially through 'education.' Others are created under the hypnotic influence of all surrounding life. A man is surrounded by people who live, speak, think, and feel by means of 'buffers.'

Imitating them in their opinions, actions, and words, a man involuntarily creates similar 'buffers' in himself. 'Buffers' make a man's life more easy. It is very hard to live without 'buffers.' But they keep man from the possibility of inner development because 'buffers' are made to lessen shocks that can lead a man out of the state in which he lives, that is, waken him. 'Buffers' will lull a man to sleep, give him the agreeable and peaceful sensation that all will be well, that no contradictions exist and that he can sleep in peace. 'Buffers' are appliances by means of which a man can always be in the right. 'Buffers' help a man not to feel his conscience."
(Gurdjieff quoted in ISOTM, pp. 159-60)

So is it possible that it was hard to just FEEL what anart told you, and you needed to make the emotion run out through this new thread?

It is not uncommon, as a psychiatrist you will have seen many people doing it, now have you ever seeing it in yourself?

That is why a network of individuals with the same aim is necessary, no matter if you are a psychiatrist, a philosopher, a sciencist, or musician, you need others to help you see yourself, you can't do it alone.

And that requires leaving out our SELF IMPORTANCE.