Telepathy and Distant Personality Diagnosis

Stevie Argyll said:
Shane said:
Stevie Argyll said:
Gonzo said:
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? :lol:

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 :)

Here is my two cents Stevie, for what they are worth.

It seems to have been clearly ascertained at this point if one has been following this thread, that your original post was made, in the very least, without you having a full and clear understanding of the many concepts we are woking with here, such as ponerology and the traits from the big 5, and the aim of protecting the forum from these behaviours. Since this has now been pointed out, and you have said that you read and understand better now, why are you steering the topic back to its original concept? Is there further clarification that you need, or questions that you have, in regards to telepethy and distant personailty diagnosis?

If not, it would seem that to go back to the topic would be futile, and a more contructive use of the thread would be to to address what the majority here "see" and are pointing out to you. That would be for your benefit. You seem to be offended by Shane's comment, based on your language. It was a valid question based on what you wrote and I do not think he was jesting. Your predator seems quite offended.
 
EmeraldHope said:
Stevie Argyll said:
Shane said:
Stevie Argyll said:
Gonzo said:
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? :lol:

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 :)

Here is my two cents Stevie, for what they are worth.

It seems to have been clearly ascertained at this point if one has been following this thread, that your original post was made, in the very least, without you having a full and clear understanding of the many concepts we are woking with here, such as ponerology and the traits from the big 5, and the aim of protecting the forum from these behaviours. Since this has now been pointed out, and you have said that you read and understand better now, why are you steering the topic back to its original concept? Is there further clarification that you need, or questions that you have, in regards to telepethy and distant personailty diagnosis?

If not, it would seem that to go back to the topic would be futile, and a more contructive use of the thread would be to to address what the majority here "see" and are pointing out to you. That would be for your benefit. You seem to be offended by Shane's comment, based on your language. It was a valid question based on what you wrote and I do not think he was jesting. Your predator seems quite offended.

I wasn't offended at all, I thought he was joking - he even used a smiley !
I was chuckling away at his joke.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Being careful of the written word because we put your own interpetation on it. You have decided I was offended when I was genuinlgy having a belly laugh.
 
Stevie Argyll said:
EmeraldHope said:
Stevie Argyll said:
Shane said:
Stevie Argyll said:
Gonzo said:
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? :lol:

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 :)

Here is my two cents Stevie, for what they are worth.

It seems to have been clearly ascertained at this point if one has been following this thread, that your original post was made, in the very least, without you having a full and clear understanding of the many concepts we are woking with here, such as ponerology and the traits from the big 5, and the aim of protecting the forum from these behaviours. Since this has now been pointed out, and you have said that you read and understand better now, why are you steering the topic back to its original concept? Is there further clarification that you need, or questions that you have, in regards to telepethy and distant personailty diagnosis?

If not, it would seem that to go back to the topic would be futile, and a more contructive use of the thread would be to to address what the majority here "see" and are pointing out to you. That would be for your benefit. You seem to be offended by Shane's comment, based on your language. It was a valid question based on what you wrote and I do not think he was jesting. Your predator seems quite offended.

I wasn't offended at all, I thought he was joking - he even used a smiley !
I was chuckling away at his joke.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Being careful of the written word because we put your own interpetation on it. You have decided I was offended when I was genuinlgy having a belly laugh.

I very well could be wrong. That is why a network is so great. It took me a long time to get that through my thick head, lol. However, based on the overall thread I do not think I am, and I think his laughing smiley was to show how funny the idea of the statement was. Perhaps Shane would be good enough to clarify. Others also. If I am wrong, I learn a valuable lesson. If you are wrong, hopefully you learn a valueable lesson. It's a win win situation. All there are is lessons.
 
EmeraldHope said:
Stevie Argyll said:
EmeraldHope said:
Stevie Argyll said:
Shane said:
Stevie Argyll said:
Gonzo said:
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? :lol:

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 :)

Here is my two cents Stevie, for what they are worth.

It seems to have been clearly ascertained at this point if one has been following this thread, that your original post was made, in the very least, without you having a full and clear understanding of the many concepts we are woking with here, such as ponerology and the traits from the big 5, and the aim of protecting the forum from these behaviours. Since this has now been pointed out, and you have said that you read and understand better now, why are you steering the topic back to its original concept? Is there further clarification that you need, or questions that you have, in regards to telepethy and distant personailty diagnosis?

If not, it would seem that to go back to the topic would be futile, and a more contructive use of the thread would be to to address what the majority here "see" and are pointing out to you. That would be for your benefit. You seem to be offended by Shane's comment, based on your language. It was a valid question based on what you wrote and I do not think he was jesting. Your predator seems quite offended.

I wasn't offended at all, I thought he was joking - he even used a smiley !
I was chuckling away at his joke.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Being careful of the written word because we put your own interpetation on it. You have decided I was offended when I was genuinlgy having a belly laugh.

I very well could be wrong. That is why a network is so great. It took me a long time to get that through my thick head, lol. However, based on the overall thread I do not think I am, and I think his laughing smiley was to show how funny the idea of the statement was. Perhaps Shane would be good enough to clarify. Others also. If I am wrong, I learn a valuable lesson. If you are wrong, hopefully you learn a valueable lesson. It's a win win situation. All there are is lessons.

No problem, If he did mean to show my statement was ridiculous then thats fine too. I don't go out of my way to look for offence and if that was his opinion then he is entitled to it.
 
Stevie Argyll said:
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.

You are twisting the concept horribly in attempting to apply it to your mechanical behavior in this thread. Your posting of this thread was wholly mechanical. You are stating that you are capable of nudging things back to their original mechanical state, which is just silly. The fact of the matter is that the original divergence from the line of force of learning here occurred when you reacted to my post regarding your intellectualization of emotions. That was the divergence - your reaction. This thread resulted from that reaction and took the situation (my original observation that could have been utilized by you in a constructive manner) in another direction, which was a manipulative attempt to scold me about the observation. The original line of force in this situation was my observation of you that could have been used to your benefit, whether that observation was wholly correct or not.

Stevie, you have a rather unsettling tendency to ignore the facts of the situation to buttress your own impressions and viewpoints. You seem to engage in quite a lot of 'selection and substitution of data'. This is unfortunate.
 
anart said:
Stevie Argyll said:
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.

You are twisting the concept horribly in attempting to apply it to your mechanical behavior in this thread. Your posting of this thread was wholly mechanical. You are stating that you are capable of nudging things back to their original mechanical state, which is just silly. The fact of the matter is that the original divergence from the line of force of learning here occurred when you reacted to my post regarding your intellectualization of emotions. That was the divergence - your reaction. This thread resulted from that reaction and took the situation (my original observation that could have been utilized by you in a constructive manner) in another direction, which was a manipulative attempt to scold me about the observation. The original line of force in this situation was my observation of you that could have been used to your benefit, whether that observation was wholly correct or not.

Stevie, you have a rather unsettling tendency to ignore the facts of the situation to buttress your own impressions and viewpoints. You seem to engage in quite a lot of 'selection and substitution of data'. This is unfortunate.

Anart

I never made this topic about you, you have made it about you, can you see that? Had you sat back and not made your first post a different discussion might have evolved.

I could assume that blood rushed to your head, that you were unable to contain your emotion, and had to post, just as you assumed of me. But what would be the point of that? Should I just make things up in my head and believe them to be true. Do I change 'maybes' to 'facts' without verification?

As I have said before it was prompted partly by yours and by others previously. And if triplethink hadn't appeared and posted about people making assumptions about him then it might not have been posted at all, it was a idea I picked up and put down from time.

I do realise now though that this probably should never have been posted. As emerald hope pointed out this forum has a long history way before me. And also another thing comes to mind - my post was about personality typing - or 'diagnosis' was the term used. And much of the good work done in this forum is people requesting 'mirroring' - and my post was not to try and put a spoke in the mirroring process , it was about the 'definitives' , the observations stated as fact and then later taken as fact into each subsequent post.

But I kind of get the impression now that unless I agree with everyone then I am in 'denial' and therefore nothing I say from here on in or have said from the beginning of topic post matters.
 
Stevie Argyll said:
I never made this topic about you, you have made it about you, can you see that? Had you sat back and not made your first post a different discussion might have evolved.

I could assume that blood rushed to your head, that you were unable to contain your emotion, and had to post, just as you assumed of me. But what would be the point of that? Should I just make things up in my head and believe them to be true. Do I change 'maybes' to 'facts' without verification?

As I have said before it was prompted partly by yours and by others previously. And if triplethink hadn't appeared and posted about people making assumptions about him then it might not have been posted at all, it was a idea I picked up and put down from time.

I do realise now though that this probably should never have been posted. As emerald hope pointed out this forum has a long history way before me. And also another thing comes to mind - my post was about personality typing - or 'diagnosis' was the term used. And much of the good work done in this forum is people requesting 'mirroring' - and my post was not to try and put a spoke in the mirroring process , it was about the 'definitives' , the observations stated as fact and then later taken as fact into each subsequent post.

Things didn't turn out as you expected, did they?
You can't control what others see about you and what they do about it.
 
Hi Stevie,

Thinking about this thread I came up with a thought today.

When you are treating a patient, your job is to steer the conversation to the topics that you have identified as possible issues. One way to identify these topics is to notice when the patient keeps trying to steer the conversation away from them, or avoid them in some way. So you try to encourage them to speak about that topic in order to get the issue out of their own mouths. It's part of the healing process for the patient to become aware of the issue "on their own". Is that a relatively close description?

What I noticed in this thread is, as soon as the discussion began to stray from what you wanted to talk about, you tried repeatedly to steer it back. As I re-read your posts it appears that, from the therapist's point of view, you were seeing almost everyone in this discussion as patients who were trying to avoid discussing the topic you had chosen. You pretty much said so, right here:

Stevie Argyll said:
I am also observing everyone's tendency to focus on me.

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

So you applied your usual professional technique to the situation, completely oblivious of the fact that the person with the issue, in this case, might very well be you.

This gives me the impression that you have chosen to participate in this forum with the intention of applying your expertise in the group in order to help others become aware of their problems. And that's very commendable. But it has also given me the impression that working on yourself was never your intention.

It seems like, being the one who is qualified to "fix" others, you are unaware that you may even HAVE any issues to resolve. You are human, aren't you? :D

I really hope you decide to try and consider the possibility presented to you here, instead of deciding that you are right and everyone around you is wrong. It could open up a whole new world for you. It did for me!!
 
Stevie Argyll said:
Anart

I never made this topic about you, you have made it about you, can you see that? Had you sat back and not made your first post a different discussion might have evolved.

Nope, if anart hadn't made her post, another would have. Because, if you read the responses here closely, you will see that there are many people all pointing out the same thing. Did you read the excerpts I posted from ISOTM? In this thread, you're the elephant; your the 'student' whose feature (false personality) is being described, and you respond with more posts just reaffirming that feature. Can you step outside of yourself and view this thread objectively? Can you view yourself objectively? Can you see how there are parts of yourself that you are completely blind to you, but which are completely obvious to others?

I could assume that blood rushed to your head, that you were unable to contain your emotion, and had to post, just as you assumed of me. But what would be the point of that? Should I just make things up in my head and believe them to be true. Do I change 'maybes' to 'facts' without verification?

You could assume, but you'd be wrong. Because you cannot "see" past your own illusions. You project, overvalue your perceptions and ideas. You should not make up things and believe them to be true; but if you are interested in doing the work, you should consider what has been observed and be ruthless with yourself, really attempt to take a look at yourself. Don't just introspect, but attempt to self-observe. Don't just parrot Gurdjieff terms.

As I have said before it was prompted partly by yours and by others previously. And if triplethink hadn't appeared and posted about people making assumptions about him then it might not have been posted at all, it was a idea I picked up and put down from time.

Can you consider that this is a rationalization? That you "do" things (i.e. react) based on impulses you cannot see? That you assume you know what you do and why you do it, when in fact you have no clue? That you are completely mechanical?

I do realise now though that this probably should never have been posted. As emerald hope pointed out this forum has a long history way before me. And also another thing comes to mind - my post was about personality typing - or 'diagnosis' was the term used. And much of the good work done in this forum is people requesting 'mirroring' - and my post was not to try and put a spoke in the mirroring process , it was about the 'definitives' , the observations stated as fact and then later taken as fact into each subsequent post.

Can you consider that this is a rationalization? That you "do" things (i.e. react) based on impulses you cannot see? That you assume you know what you do and why you do it, when in fact you have no clue? That you are completely mechanical?

But I kind of get the impression now that unless I agree with everyone then I am in 'denial' and therefore nothing I say from here on in or have said from the beginning of topic post matters.

Can you consider that this is a rationalization? That you "do" things (i.e. react) based on impulses you cannot see? That you assume you know what you do and why you do it, when in fact you have no clue? That you are completely mechanical?
 
mocachapeau said:
This gives me the impression that you have chosen to participate in this forum with the intention of applying your expertise in the group in order to help others become aware of their problems. And that's very commendable. But it has also given me the impression that working on yourself was never your intention.

This seems to me to be the crux of the matter. Stevie did not come here to learn, to Work, or to grow. He came here to "teach" others about the Gurdjieff work, because he considers himself well-versed in the concepts, and having some degree of ability to "self-observe" and "do the Work". However, I do not get the impression he can do anything more than parrot the terms, because when it comes to the application (reading signs, seeing others and himself), he fails miserably, all the while thinking he is in the right, he is the one who can see, everyone else is wrong.

Stevie seems to be unaware, or unwilling to see because his false personality is so dominant, that this is a true Fourth Way group; one which can "see" him, even if he refuses to "see" himself. When his buffers are pointed out, he says he is seeing others' buffers; when his self-importance is pointed out, he observes others' self-importance; when his reactions are pointed out, he projects them onto others. See the pattern? Deflection, deflection, deflection. Buffers, buffers, buffers.

He really has no trust in this group's observations, convinced he can see the "line of force" and "keep discussion on track", when he is completely blind to both. In essence, he uses his own estimation of himself to disregard the very observations that would advance him in his growth. Again, from ISOTM:

"The struggle against the 'false I,' against one's chief feature or chief fault, is the
most important part of the work,
and it must proceed in deeds, not in words. For this
purpose the teacher gives each man definite tasks which require, in order to carry them
out, the conquest of his chief feature. When a man carries out these tasks he struggles
with himself, works on himself. If he avoids the tasks, tries not to carry them out, it
means that either he does not want to or that he cannot work.


"As a rule only very easy tasks are given at the beginning which the teacher does
not even call tasks, and he does not say much about them but gives them in the form of
hints. If he sees that he is understood and that the tasks are carried out he passes on to
more and more difficult ones.

"More difficult tasks, although they are only subjectively difficult, are called
'barriers.' The peculiarity of barriers consists in the fact that, having surmounted a
serious barrier, a man can no longer return to ordinary sleep, to ordinary life. And if,
having passed the first barrier, he feels afraid of those that follow and does not go on,
he stops so to speak between two barriers and is unable to move either backwards or
forwards. This is the worst thing that can happen to a man. Therefore the teacher is
usually very careful in the choice of tasks and barriers, in other words, he takes the
risk of giving definite tasks requiring the conquest of inner barriers only to those
people who have already shown themselves sufficiently strong on small barriers.

"It often happens that, having stopped before some barrier, usually the smallest and
the most simple, people turn against the work, against the teacher, and against other
members of the group, and accuse them of the very thing that is becoming revealed to
them in themselves.


"Sometimes they repent later and blame themselves, then they again blame others,
then they repent once more, and so on. But there is nothing that shows up a man better
than his attitude towards the work and the teacher after he has left it. ...

"But this is not the chief thing; 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.
 
Stevie Argyll said:
EmeraldHope said:
Here is my two cents Stevie, for what they are worth.

It seems to have been clearly ascertained at this point if one has been following this thread, that your original post was made, in the very least, without you having a full and clear understanding of the many concepts we are woking with here, such as ponerology and the traits from the big 5, and the aim of protecting the forum from these behaviours. Since this has now been pointed out, and you have said that you read and understand better now, why are you steering the topic back to its original concept? Is there further clarification that you need, or questions that you have, in regards to telepethy and distant personailty diagnosis?

If not, it would seem that to go back to the topic would be futile, and a more contructive use of the thread would be to to address what the majority here "see" and are pointing out to you. That would be for your benefit. You seem to be offended by Shane's comment, based on your language. It was a valid question based on what you wrote and I do not think he was jesting. Your predator seems quite offended.

I wasn't offended at all, I thought he was joking - he even used a smiley !
I was chuckling away at his joke.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Being careful of the written word because we put your own interpetation on it. You have decided I was offended when I was genuinlgy having a belly laugh.

EH said:
I very well could be wrong. That is why a network is so great. It took me a long time to get that through my thick head, lol. However, based on the overall thread I do not think I am, and I think his laughing smiley was to show how funny the idea of the statement was. Perhaps Shane would be good enough to clarify. Others also. If I am wrong, I learn a valuable lesson. If you are wrong, hopefully you learn a valueable lesson. It's a win win situation. All there are is lessons.

No problem, If he did mean to show my statement was ridiculous then thats fine too. I don't go out of my way to look for offence and if that was his opinion then he is entitled to it.

This is just it, Stevie, you don't really LOOK at what is being said. You just brush it off, or deflect it, or ignore it, or you twist it in your mind so that it won't reflect what you are really doing.

What Shane was said is actually true. Can you see it? But in order to see it you have to actually self-observe, objectively. Doesn't it make you wonder a little about your reading instrument, if everyone else is seeing the same thing, but you are not? Could everyone else be wrong and Stevie is correct?

I agree with Mocachapeau, it seems that you have come here to share your knowledge with the group. To teach us. But "working on yourself was never your intention. "
 
mocachapeau said:
Hi Stevie,

Thinking about this thread I came up with a thought today.

When you are treating a patient, your job is to steer the conversation to the topics that you have identified as possible issues. One way to identify these topics is to notice when the patient keeps trying to steer the conversation away from them, or avoid them in some way. So you try to encourage them to speak about that topic in order to get the issue out of their own mouths. It's part of the healing process for the patient to become aware of the issue "on their own". Is that a relatively close description?

What I noticed in this thread is, as soon as the discussion began to stray from what you wanted to talk about, you tried repeatedly to steer it back. As I re-read your posts it appears that, from the therapist's point of view, you were seeing almost everyone in this discussion as patients who were trying to avoid discussing the topic you had chosen. You pretty much said so, right here:

Stevie Argyll said:
I am also observing everyone's tendency to focus on me.

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

So you applied your usual professional technique to the situation, completely oblivious of the fact that the person with the issue, in this case, might very well be you.

This gives me the impression that you have chosen to participate in this forum with the intention of applying your expertise in the group in order to help others become aware of their problems. And that's very commendable. But it has also given me the impression that working on yourself was never your intention.

It seems like, being the one who is qualified to "fix" others, you are unaware that you may even HAVE any issues to resolve. You are human, aren't you? :D

I really hope you decide to try and consider the possibility presented to you here, instead of deciding that you are right and everyone around you is wrong. It could open up a whole new world for you. It did for me!!

This is an excellent observation. It explains just about every aspect of Steve's answers in this thread. Certainly he has avoided interacting in any other mode than that which a therapist would employ. It appears that Stevie is very identified with this part of his persona. It may even be the majority of his false personality, which the predator will defend to the death. I can almost hear him shouting in frustration, "But I'm the therapist here", as he offers reason after reason as to why the discussion should focus on the subject he has raised and not him.

Steve, in your work, do you not watch for repeating patterns of behaviour to guide you in dealing with your clients? That is what is going on here. Multiple members of the forum have pointed out a repeating pattern of behaviour. You seem to be fixated on the fact that the interaction is not in person, with access to all the accompanying nuances, therefore it is not possible to form a correct picture of the pattern. But a pattern can still be discerned from a person's writing. You've evinced a consistent pattern throughout these two threads, which everyone involved has tried to point out to you, as gently as possible.

Please try to remember that it is one of your patterns of behaviour that is being assessed, not the entirety of your being. But because of the vigour and intensity with which you defend it, the conclusion of many members is that it seems to animate a good part of that being. The fact that you apparently cannot see it, cannot see how it runs you, as AI pointed out, is what concerns everyone here. They are trying to help that part of you, the real you, that is strangled by the the right-man syndrome you are caught in.

Do try, as many have suggested, to at least consider the possibility that what so many have said to you is correct. Try it out theoretically. Would it explain other difficult interactions you may have had? Might it be closing you off to a deeper understanding of the Work? What might you lose if you ignored this chance of gaining more self-understanding that is open to so few people?

Things to think about.

Herondancer
 
Stevie Argyll said:
I could assume that blood rushed to your head, that you were unable to contain your emotion, and had to post, just as you assumed of me. But what would be the point of that?

I gotta say that this statement doe not appear very sincere. Seems to be emotionally lashing out in an intentional hurtful manner. Performing self defense with effort to give back hurt. What I would provide to my children as an example of lacking in manners and maturity. Perhaps even childish like a bully on the playground. An then the second statement attempts to show a little ego to prove to others of the elevated maturity level of understanding. Sorry. I don't see any attempt of rational self observation here. I see someone who is here to puff up & prove to all their advanced being. Hurtful as it seems I must say quite arrogant or perhaps totally drawn into self delusion. Is there a desire to improve & learn? I do not "see" that. Your choice. Elevate yourself with illusion or humble yourself and accept the pain of improvement. Doesn't matter to me for it's your choice. fwiw...
 
Steve, read this:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=19438.msg189175#msg189175
 
Stevie Argyll said:
I wasn't offended at all, I thought he was joking - he even used a smiley !
I was chuckling away at his joke.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Being careful of the written word because we put your own interpetation on it. You have decided I was offended when I was genuinlgy having a belly laugh.

I think it's a little disturbing if you found what I said genuinely funny. I was pointing out the absurdity of the situation, which was clear to others. I was wondering what it would take in order to find that comment actually funny, and I'm a bit perplexed. Usually there's some sort of congruity between people when jokes are shared. Are you so detached from what is being said that it doesn't really matter? I'm also curious if your general distrust of the group (and perhaps all groups) has something to do with being entertained by the comment. Your opinions show you think you have the answers and the group is, well, lacking to say the least. It's probably not far off that you actually do think you are a 'conscious director' of others. I wouldn't doubt that you've been at least partly successful in getting others to do as you would like in your own life, if only because they grow tired of hearing your endless explanations of things. It appears that when forum members see something that you don't, that you have a need to explain more so they conform to your reality.

If you really want to discuss these issues, they need to be brought up on the spot. Making a general post about general thoughts for discussion is, as others have said a diversion. If you wanted to discuss specifics concerning triplethink, do so specifically. If you wanted to discuss Anarts observation concerning you in Oxijil's thread, you should bring it up there. The structure you've attempted to setup for this thread is to create yet another buffer where the core issues are easily diverted because it is set up as a diversion. If you really are sincere in finding answers, go into the most recent thread where you have concerns and bring up specifics. It's also apparent that you're lacking in the understanding of some of the core issues that the forum uses in it's Work. So, it would be helpful to get up to speed too. But if you already have the answers then none of this will mean anything to you and will be dismissed. And that is of course, your choice.

I'm also curious, do you do EE?
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom