Telepathy and Distant Personality Diagnosis

Keit said:
Stevie Argyll said:
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

Thanks Keit

I don't take your post as an attack and I acknowledge your admission that you are not completely sure. And I know that we can only speak of and judge others in so far as our own lived experience allows. And I do not for a minute doubt the sincerity of people desire to help. I am 100% convinced that peoples posting here is 100% sincere in desire to help. That is not an issue.
 
Ana said:
Stevie Argyll said:
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

Emotional Thinking said:
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.



Buffers said:
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.
Hi Ana
Thanks

My observation.
You seem to think you are seeing my buffers , I am beginning to wonder if I am beginning to see many other peoples buffers. It seems there may be a desire in some to hold the belief they can accurately conclude the motivations behind posts. If that is the case then I understand that this will be part of some peoples identity , that they think they are capable of that, and to challenge that would require a personal re-evaluation of their abilities and a possible re-organisation of their idea of themselves , they may even ponder that they may be wiseacring and this might be difficult.
 
You did not answer :):
Ana said:
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?
 
Ana said:
You did not answer :):
Ana said:
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?

Sorry Ana. I missed that.

No, I have already explained in numerous previous posts. This post was the result of an accumulation of observations. I was aware the timing co-inciding with Anarts post might colour peoples perceptions. But the time was right to post. To wait two weeks and then post this topic would have been dishonest and a betrayal of myself. I thought better to get it out and see what comes even though people might jump to conclusions. And all in all it has been very interesting to read peoples different conclusions.

Addendum
As a question related to the topic I posted would you be willing to answer if you have a tendency to form opinions of people based on posts and have you ever had recourse to revise those opinions when more of the 'elephant in the dark' was revealed?
 
[quote author=Stevie A]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.[/quote]

Hi Stevie,

Have you studied Lobaczewski's book Political Ponerology and the forum's discussions of it?
 
Jerry said:
[quote author=Stevie A]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.

Hi Stevie,

Have you studied Lobaczewski's book Political Ponerology and the forum's discussions of it?
[/quote]

More books - Yikes !
:)

No haven't seen it nor the thread what forum is it in?

Thanks
 
Stevie,


One of the aims of the forum is to keep itself safe from pathological behaviour. Once you read political ponerology and the big 5 it isnt hard to spot. That doesnt make the person posting pathological- if you understand ponerogeneisis you will see why. You do not need to know their motivation nor their whole being to spot the behaviour.

I did not really get the overall gist of that either when I first started posting. Anart asked me a question that led to a comment from Laura that I did not understand at first, but after much more reading I saw it more clearly. It really didn't matter why I posted the way I did- either I was missing knowledge or there was something I needed to further address within myself. And actually, bringing that to my attention was very helpful for me to get past where I was stuck.


edited for spelling
 
No haven't seen it

I suggest you get it asap.

I'd also like to add that my impression of this thread is that you may be trying to understand something without a necessary preparation.

Consider the difference between a cheap transistor radio and an expensive sophisticated receiver. Which is better at transducing the signal?
 
Stevie Argyll said:
"Be careful of the printed matter: you may not read it as it is written down.” FM Alexander


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.
:huh:Didn't you just say something about being 'dishonest and a betrayal of yourself' if you waited two weeks to post,yet in the above you say you waited for weeks. Have I missed something in the interpretation? If so ,I apologise.
 
Stevie the folder is here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?board=4.0

The website is here:

http://www.ponerology.com/

It is a CORNERSTONE of what we are working with.

An overview of the working hypothesis in regards to ponerology and FOTCM we are using is here:

http://paleochristianity.org/documents/FOTCM_Statement_of_Principles.pdf


edited- corrected hyperlink and spelling
 
EmeraldHope said:
Stevie the folder is here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?board=4.0

The website is here:

http://www.ponerology.com/

It is a CORNERSTONE of what we are working with.

An overview of the working hypothesis in regards to ponerology and FOTCM we are using is here:

http://paleochristianity.org/documents/FOTCM_Statement_of_Principles.pdf


edited- corrected hyperlink and spelling

I found the book in the books forum but could not find the link.
Thanks !

addendum

I see one of the first books mentioned there is the 'mask of sanity' - I had 'trapped in the mirror' down to start next, any opinion as to which would be better to start with? I have both at home. I will look over Pnerology with regards to ordering.
 
Stevie,

It really doesnt matter where you start as they are all important. You may want to consider reading the link to the overview I gave you which is spelled out in FOTCM above as it is very helpful in understanding why we are doing what we are doing. It also gives details in regards to ponerology as it applies to the whole of the issue. It is about 35 pages in a .pdf.
 
Stevie Argyll said:
Addendum
As a question related to the topic I posted would you be willing to answer if you have a tendency to form opinions of people based on posts and have you ever had recourse to revise those opinions when more of the 'elephant in the dark' was revealed?

Yes :), first of all on opinions:

How often do very narcissistic people assert "well, that's YOUR opinion, and this is MY
opinion, and everybody is entitled to their own opinion."

What the heck IS an opinion, anyway?

Online dictionary sez:

1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular
matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM

2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive
knowledge b : a generally held view

3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal
expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and
principles upon which a legal decision is based
In 1a, we see that an opinion is always subjective even if, by accident, it
MIGHT be objective. It is formed entirely within the mind of the person,
shaped and colored by that person's programming and reading instrument
distortions.

So here, "opinion" is a dangerous thing to have; and I mean dangerous for
the individual because it is an instrument of blindness.

In 1b we see that opinion as related to "approval" of some thing or idea, or
esteem of same, is closely connected to WISHFUL THINKING.

Again, an "opinion" and the "right to have one" is again, dangerous to the
individual.

In 2 a and b we see the same problems as in 1a and b with the additional
explanation that an opinion is based on belief rather than positive
knowledge of something. Thus it becomes a deeper trap of subjectivity and
wishful thinking.

Item 3 is not applicable here because it is a technical term, though
certainly it can be imbued with all of the above.

So, where did the idea come from that "everyone is entitled to their own
opinion" ? It begins to sound paramoralistic; a cheap shot at "democracy."

Well if you read the entire thread maybe you will get an idea of how unusefull and subjective opinions are.

So we do not form opinions of others through their posts, we just observe and then make the data available to the person. It is not a judging instrument it is a "here and now" acknowledgment of facts and it is not done by a single person but by a group of persons.

Now usually, those pretty identified with their own internal processes confuse the acknowledgment of a specific fact seen by many with an irremediable judgment.

The fact that many here can see when i am not self remembering, when i am emotionally thinking, not letting go a sacred cow, behaving runned by self importance or whatever doesn't means i am any of those things but that i am a work in progress and all this invaluable external data offered by many eyes, will help me grow and learn.
 
Thanks to everyone for their input. I can assure you I am not brushing off any input and suggestions by self calming and if I have seemingly ignored or dismissed people 'opinions/suggestions' that has definately not been the case. My moving past stuff was intended to get the topic back on track.

I am going to spend time going through the links EH gave me and later I will read the posts again and do some self inquiry.

I write this with gratitude (genuine felt) and in retrospection I am actually feeling a bit humble that so many have taken their time to input as I am aware it comes from a genuine desire to help.

I have to work and I have a good bit of reading to catch up on.

And genuine thanks to Anart, this wasn't an attempt to get at you personally by a side door.

Thanks All
 
Stevie,

Maybe it would make more sense to turn things around. Why insist that people on other people's reading errors? Don't we here in the forum want people to be able to evaluate us correctly at a distance? It would be like going to a psychologist for therapy and loudly insisting to him or her that, "You don't know me, you can't tell me what my problems are!" The psychologist would probably calmly reply, "No I don't know you, can you help me know you better?" In other words, if you think someone is not evaluating you or your statements correctly, supply more data.

The problem is, we usually want others to see only our idealized image of ourselves not who we really are.

Some people on the forum open up and share a lot about who they are and it is easier to help them. Others are guarded, and for those, yes, it's harder to know them. We get out what we put in.

Anyway, we are talking about working hypotheses, not definitive conclusions. If you act based on a working hypothesis, and are open to correcting false hypotheses, then what is the problem?
 
Back
Top Bottom