Telepathy and Distant Personality Diagnosis

[nwigal]

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, maybe the questioning of Triplethink's statements could have been more detailed. If one has claimed to have experienced 4D, what did you see, and what was it like, and what physical traces may remain that might be traced? If 5D, how long did you flat line, what was it like, and where did you find yourself? If 6D, how did you not get burned up from the exposure, and still remain here, in an organic existence? If you feel that the baseline of questioning needs to be enhanced, maybe you should not wait for others to do it, maybe you should discover the knowledge that will help you do the work involved, and share it, OSIT. Otherwise, you are just telling on yourself, not others.

 

[triplethink]

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, maybe the questioning of Triplethink's statements could have been more detailed. If one has claimed to have experienced 4D, what did you see, and what was it like, and what physical traces may remain that might be traced? If 5D, how long did you flat line, what was it like, and where did you find yourself? If 6D, how did you not get burned up from the exposure, and still remain here, in an organic existence? If you feel that the baseline of questioning needs to be enhanced, maybe you should not wait for others to do it, maybe you should discover the knowledge that will help you do the work involved, and share it, OSIT. Otherwise, you are just telling on yourself, not others.

I can attempt to explicate experience in written language although this frequently leads to misconceptions in readers and the resulting response will typically be highly variable except when there is a recognizably parallel experience in a readers experience. If the experience is mutual then there is simply recognition and acknowledgment but if there is no recognition then the explication of experience may be interpreted in a range of ways either correctly or incorrectly depending on the nature of what kind of a representation of that unknown experience has been conceived. Typically in the presence of no complementary recognition together with skepticism the perception is that the presentation is born of delusion, deception or vanity.

I'll give the exercise of explaining the causal context of this kind of experience a brief effort and people can respond however they will. As the Cassiopaea sessions likewise explain, all of the densities are within us. This is to say the human being is naturally composed of all densities 1-7. What prevents awareness of the full spectrum in general is the attribution of various fixed conceptions and/or preconceptions and various strong emotional responses to the direct moment to moment experience of the nature of experience. The result is obscuration of the entire available ranges, spheres, realms, dimensions and densities of perception. When the rationalizing mind is brought to stillness and the emotional push and pull is attenuated to a similar kind of stillness then bare awareness and bare sensate existence presents as directly accessible. In this way one is enabled, over the course of time, to attend to experience in manifold ways to increasingly more of what is accessible and there is no absolutely fixed limit to what is accessible or what kinds of further responses or absence of responses in regards to the experiences are possible. The limits are imposed by the projection of self and the projection of others as conceived or felt in response to the raw data of experience. In actual fact awareness is simply elemental in the same way that electrons are elemental and the apparent materiality is simply bound up with awareness in a similar way into forms and the result is a given experience. One cannot however demonstrate this truth to another, each must investigate for themselves within and then when a complete clarity of vision is established one may re-examine the world and the universe without in true objectivity.

 

[anart]

I can attempt to explicate experience in written language although this frequently leads to misconceptions in readers and the resulting response will typically be highly variable except when there is a recognizably parallel experience in a readers experience. If the experience is mutual then there is simply recognition and acknowledgment but if there is no recognition then the explication of experience may be interpreted in a range of ways either correctly or incorrectly depending on the nature of what kind of a representation of that unknown experience has been conceived. Typically in the presence of no complementary recognition together with skepticism the perception is that the presentation is born of delusion, deception or vanity.

I'll give the exercise of explaining the causal context of this kind of experience a brief effort and people can respond however they will. As the Cassiopaea sessions likewise explain, all of the densities are within us. This is to say the human being is naturally composed of all densities 1-7. What prevents awareness of the full spectrum in general is the attribution of various fixed conceptions and/or preconceptions and various strong emotional responses to the direct moment to moment experience of the nature of experience. The result is obscuration of the entire available ranges, spheres, realms, dimensions and densities of perception. When the rationalizing mind is brought to stillness and the emotional push and pull is attenuated to a similar kind of stillness then bare awareness and bare sensate existence presents as directly accessible. In this way one is enabled, over the course of time, to attend to experience in manifold ways to increasingly more of what is accessible and there is no absolutely fixed limit to what is accessible or what kinds of further responses or absence of responses in regards to the experiences are possible. The limits are imposed by the projection of self and the projection of others as conceived or felt in response to the raw data of experience. In actual fact awareness is simply elemental in the same way that electrons are elemental and the apparent materiality is simply bound up with awareness in a similar way into forms and the result is a given experience. One cannot however demonstrate this truth to another, each must investigate for themselves within and then when a complete clarity of vision is established one may re-examine the world and the universe without in true objectivity.

triplethink - what does the above actually mean? Concisely? It's the biggest serving of word salad that I've seen for quite some time. If you could please just write clearly and concisely it would be an enormous help.

 

[EmeraldHope]

Triplethink

For what it is worth, I, too ,felt hit over the head by a wall of text when I tried to read your post.

 

[Laura]

We call it "salad shooter metaphysics." As Ark is wont to say: if you can't explain it to a 12 year old, you don't understand it yourself.

 

[Guardian]

I can attempt to explicate experience in written language although this frequently leads to misconceptions in readers and the resulting response will typically be highly variable except when there is a recognizably parallel experience in a readers experience. If the experience is mutual then there is simply recognition and acknowledgment but if there is no recognition then the explication of experience may be interpreted in a range of ways either correctly or incorrectly depending on the nature of what kind of a representation of that unknown experience has been conceived. Typically in the presence of no complementary recognition together with skepticism the perception is that the presentation is born of delusion, deception or vanity.

Just say "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra." and save yourself about 300 words ;D

 

[Mountain Crown]

Sometimes a posture requires more and more effort to maintain.

 

[T.C.]

Stevie

One of the main reasons for this forum, is to help people see things more as they are; that is why a forum is used in the first place - because we can all feel a different part of the elephant, and come to a better idea of what it is in itself.

If we want to see our reality more objectively, we have to see ourselves more objectively; you cannot have one without the other. Ipso facto, at this moment, we see ourselves subjectively - not as we really are.

Did you catch that? You see yourself subjectively - not as you really are.

I find it very weird that you can't answer questions about how you feel. You can't stop identifying with your false personality. You can't apply fundamental concepts of Gurdjieff's Work to yourself. You can't look in the mirror.

My first mirror changed my life forever. In the beginning, I was like you. I couldn't just stop and think to myself "maybe what they're saying is true", because I wouldn't allow myself to feel the pain, so I just kept on posting. But quite quickly, I became concerned that not just one, but a number of people were seeing things in me that I didn't know about - which is a dangerous situation to be in, for myself and those around me. And that's what weakened my identification with my false self-image long enough for me to see that the group was right, and I have a lot of work to do; because I don't want to have such a lack of objectivity about myself, which equates to a lack of control over my self.

Doesn't that worry you too?

 

[Buddy]

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, it is not because you disagree that you are, or may be, in some kind of 'denial'.

As I see it, that is exactly the wrong way around and what I thought you might be worried about. It is possible for denial to exist on a non-verbal level - before thought commences. It's just a way to "set yourself" to refuse to look any deeper so that you could mesh your facts/truth with the facts/truth of the group - to expand your map of the territory. There is only one reality/Universe after all. If there are more, they are not relevant to this discussion, OSIT.

Please feel free to correct me where I'm off base.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

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, it is not because you disagree that you are, or may be, in some kind of 'denial'.

As I see it, that is exactly the wrong way around and what I thought you might be worried about. It is possible for denial to exist on a non-verbal level - before thought commences. It's just a way to "set yourself" to refuse to look any deeper so that you could mesh your facts/truth with the facts/truth of the group - to expand your map of the territory. There is only one reality/Universe after all. If there are more, they are not relevant to this discussion, OSIT.

Please feel free to correct me where I'm off base.

Also, it has nothing to do with just "agreeing" that one is in denial. That's just an intellectual process. For example, when you're CERTAIN that it was a certain actor that played a certain part in a certain movie, go to imdb.com to prove your friends wrong, and it turns out YOU'RE wrong, the cold hard truth is not that difficult to submit to. But when it comes to truly Seeing something about ourselves, it is not so simple to just "agree" for the sake of agreeing. Perhaps, at first, to just consider that in the future I MAY agree. Perhaps that IS the way I am. But in order for YOU to change, not simply "it" to change, it must be FELT. And until it's felt, all you can do is hold it as a working hypothesis to be tested by further observation.

 

[Gonzo]

Hello Anart,

Is there a chance that Stevie is being honest that, although your comment was largely the trigger, other comments also led to thinking about writing a thread, but did not do it with you, personally in mind; that the comments contributed to a growing notion that diagnosises are being made without sufficient data?

I'm asking because there are different areas the Stevie is being asked to consider and I think I have seen some confusion in some member's comments, about which of the area he is responding to:

- that his posting was a direct result of your comment in another thread and that he is being dishonest to deny it;

- that he posted to accuse some of acting as if they are capable of telepathy and distant personality diagnosis and overestimating ones ability;

- all of the observation and advice relating to both the aforementioned as well as his reactions throughout the thread

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

Was this thread not a reaction to my observation?

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

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

I think a sticking point is that Stevie continues to deny his post was specifically and personally directed at you and because of you, which is being assumed as denial about other areas. If there is some evidence that you believe his posting was as you assumed, I think it important to clear it up. Aside from this area, it seems Stevie is more able to consider suggestions and yet remains adamant that the post was not specifically as you claim.

It seems to me that this is either due to a form of blinding or because it is true. I would find it most helpful to be able to have this illuminated so that other areas may be seen in their own light, without the ambiguous shadow of your involvement hanging overhead.

Thanks,
Gonzo

 

[anart]

Hi Gonzo,

The point isn't whether the post was a reaction to what I had written to Stevie - it was, if even in part, as he admits - however, that reaction of his is just a symptom. If you re-read Approaching Infinity's posts in this thread you'll get a better idea of what the forum is trying to bring to Stevie's attention.

Are you feeling uncomfortable with this thread, thus your post asking for clarification on Stevie's behalf?

 

[EmeraldHope]

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.

Gonzo, based on this post I would have to say I think you may uncomfortable also.

 

[Gonzo]

On the contrary, I am in full agreement with everything that has been presented to Stevie. The only area I was seeking clarification was with respect to the purpose of the post, whther or not he posted specifically because of Anart. It was important for Anart to allude to it more than once, and I wanted to better understand the dynamics behind Stevie's denying such a purpose.

I apologize if that was not clear in my posting.

Ironic. However, that certain assumptions are now being made about me.
Gonzo

 

[EmeraldHope]

On the contrary, I am in full agreement with everything that has been presented to Stevie. The only area I was seeking clarification was with respect to the purpose of the post, whther or not he posted specifically because of Anart. It was important for Anart to allude to it more than once, and I wanted to better understand the dynamics behind Stevie's denying such a purpose.

I apologize if that was not clear in my posting.

Ironic. However, that certain assumptions are now being made about me.
Gonzo

I personally was not making an assumption per say Gonzo. I read Anart's question and the first thing I thought of was that post of yours that I quoted. It was immediate in my head. That is why said I thought you may be uncomfortable, as in Anart's question was plausable.


That being said, I , also, while reading the thread as it progressed, felt a little uncomfortable when Anart kept insisting it was her that this was about. To be honest I felt that was not really all that this was about from Stevie's standpoint, although it may have contributed, and may very well have been what started him thinking. I can also say, if I am being honest, that if it were not just about Anart, and I was in Stevie's place, and she kept saying it was about her, I would have gotten very frusturated. Maybe, if that is the case, Stevie was very frusturated by the time we were pointing out other things, and it colored the way he was hearing everything else.

I did not say anything because I was afraid there was something I was not seeing. There still may be. And of course, that doesnt take away from all of the valid feedback.


Addendum: Now that I think about it, I think that the reason I thought of your post so quickly is because it resonated with me for the reasons outlined above as I did feel uncomfortable about the same thing .