Telepathy and Distant Personality Diagnosis

[Nienna]

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

I just had the chance to read the thread here.

Stevie, since you are going to spend time doing some self-inquiry, I would like to add an observation I have made many times in your various posts across this forum.

You are very good at questioning others statements and observations, but I have very rarely, if ever, seen you say that you, yourself, may have been wrong. You seem to not question yourself at all, but make brazen statements such as, "I can assure you that I have not been brushing off any input and suggestions." Are you so sure? Do you ever question yourself?

People have given you observations of yourself many times and you are, for the part, always saying that they have it wrong. Do you ever question yourself?

When you have been given such sincere observations, it would be good for you to do as Emerald Hope, and many others do. They take those observations and take a hard look at what has been said and at themselves to see if there may just be some truth to them.

I have had many mirrors and observations about myself. I take them quite seriously. And I have found that they were always spot on! But you have to take the time to stop defending yourself and actually look at yourself.

You seem to be quite defensive about any observations of you. That's really common, especially for people who haven't done much of the Work. They have to get their self-importance out of the way. And that's very hard to do. But once that has been accomplished, it is a lot easier to actually "see" what is being said to you, to not take things as accusations and to be able to question yourself, to stop and see the programs running.

But, first, you have to want to.

Just my observations at this time.

 

[Buddy]

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?

This is spot on, as I see it. Personally, I do tend to form opinions of people prematurely, because inference always goes on below the level of conscious thought. It can't be stopped, but one can stay open for more input and ask for clarifications.

I also want people to perceive my idealized image of myself, and I am smart enough to know there are those who see me the way I really am and how the coherence of my thoughts changes from subject to subject - because I see it myself. I am still learning and trying to participate in the process of growing.

I've also experienced lack of being instantly understood. It can be frustrating and it is understandable, but patience is useful here because the number of iterations required to unify understanding is not a pre-set quantity per context.

I was curious enough to ask, Stevie: Did you consider that if you understood exactly what your own point of view was, you would be able to juxtapose what others said and automatically perceive where the gaps of understanding were located? I would think so.

BTW, my understanding of that Beelzebub's Tales reference indicates that your concern might really be related to that layer of the 'unspeakable'; between what is and one's perception and conceptualization of it. This is the layer where any bias or denial can come in and instantly distort reality, producing an inner logic that is impeccable, but the conclusion always comes out wrong.

If this is your concern, you have reason for it. We all do. But don't we also have a responsibility to be fair to others in our participation in resolving it? - what Alfred Korzybski calls "Semantic Reactions"?

Korzybski has talked about 'semantic reactions' which is when one reacts based on the consciously or unconsciously perceived "meaning" of an event, rather than based on the event itself.

As an example: Joe comes home from work and gives his wife flowers. She gets angry with him. Maybe she's assuming he's giving her flowers because he has something to hide and that it really means he is having an affair, and so she gets mad at that. Maybe Joe wanted to do something nice, or there was a sale on flowers.

Semantic reactions sometimes makes it difficult to have rational constructive interactions between people.

Training oneself to recognize and overcome semantic reactions in oneself and others, could form the basis of more sane interactions and activities between people.
Source: _http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/gensemantics.html

The 'semantic reaction' in this case being the 'meaning' that a given diagnostic metaphor/symbol, or the 'attempt' to do so, represents?

Fwiw, I think you're handling yourself fine since you are willing to consider more info.

Again, if I am completely off base, don't hesitate to say so. :)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I just had the chance to read the thread here.

Stevie, since you are going to spend time doing some self-inquiry, I would like to add an observation I have made many times in your various posts across this forum.

You are very good at questioning others statements and observations, but I have very rarely, if ever, seen you say that you, yourself, may have been wrong. You seem to not question yourself at all, but make brazen statements such as, "I can assure you that I have not been brushing off any input and suggestions." Are you so sure? Do you ever question yourself?

People have given you observations of yourself many times and you are, for the part, always saying that they have it wrong. Do you ever question yourself?

When you have been given such sincere observations, it would be good for you to do as Emerald Hope, and many others do. They take those observations and take a hard look at what has been said and at themselves to see if there may just be some truth to them.

I have had many mirrors and observations about myself. I take them quite seriously. And I have found that they were always spot on! But you have to take the time to stop defending yourself and actually look at yourself.

You seem to be quite defensive about any observations of you. That's really common, especially for people who haven't done much of the Work. They have to get their self-importance out of the way. And that's very hard to do. But once that has been accomplished, it is a lot easier to actually "see" what is being said to you, to not take things as accusations and to be able to question yourself, to stop and see the programs running.

But, first, you have to want to.

Just my observations at this time.

I, too, just got a chance to read this thread. The parts in bold above were pretty much identical to some of the things I I was writing as I read. I, too, have had mirrors, and they've all turned out to be spot on. That doesn't mean they're easy. They're not. It is never easy to take a hard look at yourself. Were the moderators and members who provided that feedback just lucky? As anart said, just because you don't think it's possible, it doesn't mean it isn't.

I had some more observations while reading this thread. Here they are:

Shane, Telepathy was Hyperbole, for a Wake up Shock, to make people sit up and think.

You talk repeatedly of others questioning that they are overestimating themselves. And yet, can you not see the arrogance of your approach? That you are the one in a position to show people what's REALLY going on, again, not questioning yourself in the slightest.

Its like the Elephant in the Dark.

And yet, with several people, all touching the elephant, concluding that it's probably an elephant, the elephant still says, "It's dark in here, you can't possibly tell that I'm an elephant! Are you sure you are not overestimating your abilities?"

Here are some quotes from ISOTM that seem relevant to me:

the chief thing is his own personal attitude, his own
valuation of the ideas which he receives or has received, and his keeping or losing this
valuation. A man may think for a long time and quite sincerely that he wants to work
and even make great efforts, and then he may throw up everything and even definitely
go against the work; justify himself, invent various fabrications, deliberately ascribe a wrong meaning to what he has heard, and so on."

...

"You know nothing in yourself," G. told him; "if you knew you would not have that
feature. And people certainly see you in the way I told you. But you do not see how
they see you. If you accept what I told you as your chief feature you will understand
how people see you. And if you find a way to struggle with this feature and to destroy
it, that is, to destroy its involuntary manifestation" (G. emphasized these words), "you
will produce on people not the impression that you do now but any impression you
like."

...

He said to another that his chief feature was a tendency always to argue with
everybody about everything.
"But then I never argue," the man very heatedly at once replied.
Nobody could help laughing.
G. told another of our party—it was the middle-aged man on whom he had carried
out the experiment of dividing personality from essence and who asked for raspberry
jam—that his feature was that he had no conscience.
The following day the man came and said that he had been in the public library and
had looked through the encyclopedic dictionaries of four languages for the meaning of
the word "conscience."
G. merely waved his hand.
To the other man, his companion in the experiment, G. said that he had no shame,
and he at once cracked a rather amusing joke against himself.

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.

Stevie, the fact that your work wasn't in therapy is just a detail. It has nothing to do with Bud's intent (i.e. what is behind his words). He was asking if you were AFRAID. He was asking how you felt. Now you've described emotions several times on the forum, but you haven't once described how you felt. It has all been abstract, at a remove.

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.

Perhaps consider that many here have stated that they could be wrong. That's the philosophy of this forum, after all, and one of the founding principles of FOTCM. And yet, not once have you come close to saying you might be wrong about yourself. Do you know yourself so completely? Are you so sure of yourself?

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.

Are you saying that since anart's post, you have felt nothing? That only now are you beginning to feel a "bit frustrated"? And yet you can't consider the possibility that your intellect dominates? Can you see the disconnect here. On the one hand, you're saying you do FEEL, you don't intellectualize your emotions; and on the other hand you are saying that this whole discussion has prompted little more than a tad of frustration?

 

[Renaissance]

When you have been given such sincere observations, it would be good for you to do as Emerald Hope, and many others do. They take those observations and take a hard look at what has been said and at themselves to see if there may just be some truth to them.

I just want to piggyback on this because the nature of what takes place during the consideration of a mirror is frequently misunderstood and is quite a unique process. If I remember correctly, the term 'mirror' comes from Mouravieff, but even he doesn't explain it's nature in length. The Wave is the really the only place I know of that pulls the pieces together. When members point out observations, they are often invisible to the individual being observed. There are some buffers we can become aware of, but the most effective ones are those that operate subconsciously. Laura wrote about the 'third man' and here's a small snippet from The Wave that seems to fit:

Each and every human being perceives the Third Man according to their programming which activates or is activated by their belief system. This is their "State of Awareness." They can only be aware of what they BELIEVE they can be aware of, and all else becomes either "invisible" or "anomalous" and disregarded or covered up by the survival program of the subconscious mind.

So when group members offer their observations, it's not being suggested that someone is being consciously inconsiderate, that they knew they were distracting from the conversation, and so on. It's only when the observation is fully and sincerely considered it as a possibility, that the individual might then see glimpses of these attributes. These glimpses often can create a crack that opens up some hefty doors to buried emotions and false parts of ourselves that were the gatekeepers of those emotions. And I think most importantly, it takes a group of people who are willing to go through this process individually and offer the same in return.

 

[mocachapeau]

Hi Stevie,

I just got through reading this thread, and think it's great that you have decided to read some of the books that have been suggested. They've really helped me a lot, and they may help you as well.

When I first arrived here I had to face the fact that I was feeling overly sure of the "rightness" of my own opinion. Anart was one who helped me with that, and other things, in her direct, frustrating, shocking but rather effective way. I found myself getting pretty riled up over a couple of her posts, but today I can see that she helped me to think and to observe myself in those emotional moments. She has helped me a great deal in this learning process. But I know how it can feel - we all do.

I'm not saying that I know you had an emotional reaction because of what Anart posted in that other thread (over-intellectualizing your emotions), but I do think it is possible. And one thing is for sure, your reaction to discussing that possibility was what you have called 'steering this thread back on track' - away from where it was headed. And it was definitely headed toward the subject of 'you'. I think you would have to agree that you did not openly embrace the subject and discuss it freely. That feels like avoidance and, as an experienced therapist, you know that could indicate an "issue".

Yes, I understand that you had intended to start a thread on a topic other than 'you', and that you wanted to engage in an intellectual exchange. But someone saw something lurking behind your words and questioned you about it. That's what they do here, because that is what they are supposed to do here, and they will keep doing it here until the cows come home! So, considering where we are, the only thing that stood out as being "odd" in the exchange was your reaction to the sudden focus on you. Doesn't that make you stop and think? Red flag, maybe?

If I'm not mistaken, you never actually denied getting angry, you just turned it all around by pointing out that no one can be SURE that this was the case. That, of course, was the topic you wanted to discuss originally, right? Very convenient hiding place. :D

My observations may be off the mark but if not, I hope they may be helpful. If there IS something here you should maybe address, the reading should help you find it.

 

[Gonzo]

Hi Stevie,
I've been lurking in the background throughout this thread, often having to take a few steps back to step out of some identification I was having. In the end, I used this thread to see certain tendencies in myself.

I will not pretend to know why you posted this thread, whether it was a reaction to or a trigger from postings and responses in another thread or if it was truly inspirational.
I'm leaning toward a combination of all of the above, which ultimately makes it a form of reaction.

I have seen similar situations on this forum where someone will start a thread on a certain topic, but member take note of something deeper and start to probe.

After all, this is not a debating club. In fact, a primary purpose of this forum is to help each other step out of our buffers.

And almost each time this happens, I notice the initial poster continuing to try to steer the conversation back to the original topic.

But to allow such steering would betray the purpose of the forum.

To add complexity to this forked dialogue, where the originator wants to talk about one thing and the group wants to talk about aspects of the originator, you also are dealing with the perception of inaccurate assessment behind your motives.

If I could suggest you drop both looking for the answer to your posted question and well as your desire to "set the record straight" and instead allow the comments to drift inward, welcoming their meaning, I believe it will be most beneficial for you. If that was precisely what you were going to do, when you mentioned stepping back in your last post, that's great.

I personally have enjoyed the process of letting go of such things, even though the desire to "set the record straight" will eat away at me for days, weeks or even months. It affords me the opportunity to figure out why it is so important that I succeed in correcting a perceived error. For me it ultimately is a battle over self importance.

Regarding over estimating one's ability to accurately observe (I won't use the technical term diagnose, as it infers specific requisite training and we don't diagnose here (although we do occasionally see terms like psychopath thrown around when there is insufficient data to render such a guess), I don't think it is really possible in the way I believe you mean it. Individually it is inevitable that one overestimates one's abilities but it is fuel for the Work of each one's life.

However, as a collective, as an interactive network of colinear individual with the objective if uncovering the objective truth, such matters get dealt with through intelligent, unattached and unemotional dialogue and thought.

Take care,
Gonzo

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Thanks EH for those links. I see better how the forum is protected.

Thank you all for the posts.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Gonzo

thanks for your post
just one thing.

And almost each time this happens, I notice the initial poster continuing to try to steer the conversation back to the original topic.

But to allow such steering would betray the purpose of the forum.

in In Search Of The Miraculous and in Beelzebubs Tales the Law of the Octave or the Law of Heptaparaparshinokh are outlined. They state that at a point in any process there can be a divergence from the original direction due to external or mechanical influence and at this point a conscious effort is required to ensure the process remains on track. The nudges back to the point of the post was to stop this diverging onto other topics. A 'work' discipline if you like.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

I just had the chance to read the thread here.

Stevie, since you are going to spend time doing some self-inquiry, I would like to add an observation I have made many times in your various posts across this forum.

You are very good at questioning others statements and observations, but I have very rarely, if ever, seen you say that you, yourself, may have been wrong. You seem to not question yourself at all, but make brazen statements such as, "I can assure you that I have not been brushing off any input and suggestions." Are you so sure? Do you ever question yourself?

Hi Nienna

perhaps you missed this in my first post?
---------------------
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?
---------------------

or my reply to Mr Premise
-----------------------
I just found an over estimation of my ability to grok a posters pure intention by discounting linguistic difference.
Thanks
--------------

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Gonzo

If I could suggest you drop both looking for the answer to your posted question and well as your desire to "set the record straight" and instead allow the comments to drift inward, welcoming their meaning, I believe it will be most beneficial for you. If that was precisely what you were going to do, when you mentioned stepping back in your last post, that's great.

Agreed, well put. I shall end it here.

 

[Renaissance]

And almost each time this happens, I notice the initial poster continuing to try to steer the conversation back to the original topic.

But to allow such steering would betray the purpose of the forum.

in In Search Of The Miraculous and in Beelzebubs Tales the Law of the Octave or the Law of Heptaparaparshinokh are outlined. They state that at a point in any process there can be a divergence from the original direction due to external or mechanical influence and at this point a conscious effort is required to ensure the process remains on track. The nudges back to the point of the post was to stop this diverging onto other topics. A 'work' discipline if you like.

So you're the conscious directer of this mechanical group?

 

[Mr. Premise]

Wrong context. That would only apply if you actually knew where the topic should go and if it were your forum.

Gonzo

thanks for your post
just one thing.

And almost each time this happens, I notice the initial poster continuing to try to steer the conversation back to the original topic.

But to allow such steering would betray the purpose of the forum.

in In Search Of The Miraculous and in Beelzebubs Tales the Law of the Octave or the Law of Heptaparaparshinokh are outlined. They state that at a point in any process there can be a divergence from the original direction due to external or mechanical influence and at this point a conscious effort is required to ensure the process remains on track. The nudges back to the point of the post was to stop this diverging onto other topics. A 'work' discipline if you like.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

And almost each time this happens, I notice the initial poster continuing to try to steer the conversation back to the original topic.

But to allow such steering would betray the purpose of the forum.

in In Search Of The Miraculous and in Beelzebubs Tales the Law of the Octave or the Law of Heptaparaparshinokh are outlined. They state that at a point in any process there can be a divergence from the original direction due to external or mechanical influence and at this point a conscious effort is required to ensure the process remains on track. The nudges back to the point of the post was to stop this diverging onto other topics. A 'work' discipline if you like.

So you're the conscious directer of this mechanical group?

I said I wouldn't post again but I just have to.

Shane, your comment is class, it has me in fits :)

FWITW i will try and explain it , still laughing :).

If someone comes to the thread at page 5 they might have missed the point of the topic, so I was attempting to keep pointing back to the topic so that it didn't meander tooo far.

Thanks :)

 

[Gonzo]

Hi Stevie, do you think that quote applies to every an all situations or is there a possibility that there is a notwithstanding clause to be understood?

For example, if someone were to continue to try to bring the conversation back to a lie that originated the conversation, what would be pursued would be validating a lie and not giving it what it deserves: the truth.

It seems to me you are still clinging.

My $0.02,
Gonzo

 

[Oxajil]

in In Search Of The Miraculous and in Beelzebubs Tales the Law of the Octave or the Law of Heptaparaparshinokh are outlined. They state that at a point in any process there can be a divergence from the original direction due to external or mechanical influence and at this point a conscious effort is required to ensure the process remains on track. The nudges back to the point of the post was to stop this diverging onto other topics. A 'work' discipline if you like.

Making this thread could have been "a divergence from the original direction" and changing the focus from the made thread to you, Stevie Argyll, could be an opportunity to "ensure the process remains on track". However, this asks conscious effort from you and you don't seem to give any.

Assuming your original direction is to grow and learn with the help of others who also do the Work.