Telepathy and Distant Personality Diagnosis

[Approaching Infinity]

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.

As anart has pointed out, this is not the main issue, but a symptom of something larger. It has to do with the unconscious, manipulative behaviors (feeding) of the false personality, which we passively take as our true 'self'. In fact, we have no such thing. Our actions are influenced by forces we don't comprehend: biological, social, narcissistic programs, hyperdimensional influences. But as long as we accept them as 'ours', we will never change, and our fate is as Gurdjieff described it. Think of all the little ways we manipulate for attention, for others to hold us in high regard (the regard we hold for ourselves), to keep hold of our vanities and unfounded ideas about ourselves.

For example, imagine a conversation between a couple. The husband is angry and suspicious that his wife is cheating, and asks a sarcastic question about a friend of hers, who she's been spending time with. She responds, "Quit making fun of me," because she can naturally read what's going on behind his question. He responds, "I'm not making fun, I'm MERELY trying to find out what happened." It's a variation of #7 (the "innocent" question) in the list Laura linked to above. The husband has a "perfectly good" explanation about his question, but he is not being honest with himself, or his wife. He's too hung up on his own self-image, and his sense of "possession" to be honest and sincere. My Dad's an expert at this one, and I've seen it in myself, too!

Now, Stevie may very well have had thoughts about posting something, but he no doubt has convinced himself that those thoughts were the sole reason motivating his decision to start this thread. It was an "innocent" question, strictly intellectual, no hidden motives. But the fact that he is so adamant says something. The prior thoughts and thought loops are merely the "excuse", the rationalization for the behavior which is emotionally/mechanically based (which is how ALL our behaviors are based). How can it be any different, in our current mechanical state?

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

Probably best to reread the posts in response to yours. A question was posed, simple as that. I've got a question, too: how does others making "certain assumptions" about you make you FEEL?

 

[Peam]

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 too felt that from what Stevie has posted, he has been uncomfortable for a while but kept it to himself. But I don't think he would have started this thread at this point if Anart hadn't posted her observation of Stevie in the other thread, so I do think that is what triggered Stevie to start this thread. A sort of 'the final straw' at what he perceives to be only possible if telepathy or crystal ball is used.

Stevie does seem very frustrated by Anart saying it was about her, and he seems to have fixed on this one point in his mind to the exclusion of all other feedback to him.

Then there is his title of the thread and his attempt to steer it back on the course he wanted. To me he wasn't really asking “where does our confidence in our ability come from?” he seemed to be making a statement something like “you (Anart and others) cannot possibly 'see the unseen' in someone's written words without telepathy, so I invite you all to discuss and realize your error because I am right and sticking to my view.

 

[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 .

I have been thinking more about this since I posted. It is obvious to me that I projected onto Gonzo here, as I said above. So, what exactly was making me uncomfortable? After much thought, I was feeling embarrassed for Anart and sorry for Stevie. I saw myself in Anart, when so many times I am dead right in the big picture and wrong in detail, but will not conceed one inch because I think I'm 100% right. Being the objective observer to this thread made me see how I must look to others. My own arrogance is what made me feel uncomfortable. It reminds me of a saying I read a while ago- " Do I want to be right, or do I want to be heard?



Gonzo- who were you identified with in the thread? Anart or Stevie? I am assuming it must be one or the other since it bothered you also.

 

[Oxajil]

For example, imagine a conversation between a couple. The husband is angry and suspicious that his wife is cheating, and asks a sarcastic question about a friend of hers, who she's been spending time with. She responds, "Quit making fun of me," because she can naturally read what's going on behind his question. He responds, "I'm not making fun, I'm MERELY trying to find out what happened." It's a variation of #7 (the "innocent" question) in the list Laura linked to above. The husband has a "perfectly good" explanation about his question, but he is not being honest with himself, or his wife. He's too hung up on his own self-image, and his sense of "possession" to be honest and sincere. My Dad's an expert at this one, and I've seen it in myself, too!

That sounds like a lack of "respectful adult communication" (RAC). In order to be able to communicate well, this is important:

Once individuals are able to (1) recognize that they have feelings and (2) label their feelings, they are then able to learn to express their feelings appropriately - [...]. When they are then able to accept (3) that they have a right to experience those feelings and (4) that their feelings are important, it becomes easier for them to verbalize their expectations to other people - [...].

If they do not realize these, they communicate with all kinds of techniques and via many ways, which the " "innocent" question" could be an example of.

And when we think about the observation made that Stevie over-intellectualizes his emotional processes, it might make sense, it appears this is one of the ways he deals with his, perhaps not yet recognizable, feelings. He has not learned otherwise. Just like Stevie, many of us, if not all people who have a conscious, have problems with expressing our feelings in healthy ways.

So these are my observations about Stevie:

I don't think Stevie takes this forum seriously. He seems to have a fixed belief of how things should be. He also seems to know himself pretty well, actually, better than anyone else does. Because as soon as one makes an observation of him he does not agree with (because only he knows himself best), he starts to see it as an attack. Perhaps as an accusation. No one but himself can make correct observations about himself.

Okay, now that doesn't make much sense for someone who's pretty much interested in Gurdjieff's material. Because G. made it quite clear that we do not know ourselves. Everything happens.

He might have an idea that we don't know ourselves, but Stevie asks himself: why trust someone he does not know? He wants to know exactly how you are in your home, at your work, at school, everywhere, he wants to know you before he can even take your observation seriously...

Well, Stevie, since we do not know ourselves, we could use all the observations we can get. Think about this example: If someone you don't know that well tells you you're being very inconsiderate, what you gonna do? Are you gonna think "Whatever" Or are you gonna think "Well that's interesting, I wonder why he is saying that, perhaps it is because of something I have done or said, I could work on that" etc. If you throw away every observation or comment made about you, without thinking them over, than what hope is left for you? How are you ever gonna know or learn about your machine?

Now this forum is different than the life out there, because most people here do the Work as well, they have experiences with it, and they have some knowledge about it. So if these people make observations, it is when you should pay attention the most.
It's all about helping you with knowing yourself better, and helping you grow.

And I know for 99% that you will think or say (about my post): "What is this person talking about, just another assumption, I never said this or that!" Well, I've described how you come across to me. Apparently it is something in your behavior or the way you "talk" that gave me this impression, so are you going to go and find out what it is, so that you might learn something from it? Or are you gonna see this as an attack and dismiss it?

Who am I? Just someone who does the Work just like you, for some years. And someone who has made observations about you, which you can use for growth. How I am at home, at work or at school should not play a role at all, also because I can't tell you how I am, because I'm still in the process of discovering myself. Probably like you. There is nothing else to it...

And more eyes see more than two, and that's what this forum is for, osit, so we can, for example, check our observations that we make of each other. It's a learning experience for all of us. You can't do the Work alone. And until you don't take this forum seriously, I don't know what else you could do...

 

[Gonzo]

Although I didn't find myself identifying with Stevie in this thread, I did see myself in the earlier thread, intellectualizing emotions, as well as overintellectualizing - traits of my own with which I have had difficulty my whole life and it has been a central area of my personal work since I first became aware of it in my late adolescence/early 20's. I inherited it from my father.

But the reason I asked my question had to do with trying to facilitate reasoning through separating the areas of discussion where I felt I saw some misunderstanding in some respondent's comments and to do so, I needed some clarification on the injection of Anart into the story, which was a potential for distraction from the greater issues as I saw them. I thought that if I could understand why Anart, who is generally bang on, felt Stevie was motivated by the sting of her comments from an earlier thread, I could then decide on how best to rectify Stevie's reactions.

In terms of emotions I had been experiencing, it was a growing frustration in myself at Stevie's focus on Anart's claim and if that claim could be removed from the equation or settled outright, I felt there was a greater chance for Stevie to be able to see the truths in the other areas.

I do recognize that that portion of the overall thread was not nearly as important as the rest, which is precisely why I thought that somehow dealing with it would allow the more important areas to be discussed unfettered by the distraction.


I do recall when I was a lurker on the forum before I joined, I used to see all sorts of things that were not there, that I projected onto others. I saw what I thought was a tendency to "pile on", when in reality it was a result if the sheer number of members in agreement on an issue that created the illusion, I thought that some comments could have been presented in more considerate ways and sometimes would over empathize with new arrivals with obvious misunderstanding of certain concepts who would soon find themselves quickly getting corrected, but I learned that the illusions I was having were related to programming and that comments were actually void of emotion, not coldness. What I was seeing was the efficiency of removing ego and emotion from dialogue, which was a foreign concept to me at the time.

When I would occasionally see a member express the very feelings I was having only to see them corrected, I applied the resulting corrections to myself and discovered that the they did indeed apply to myself as well.

I apologize for the length. I was concerned I might not be making myself clear. However, I would be more than happy to explain in more detail if there are areas requiring clarity.


Regards,
Gonzo

 

[Laura]

I think that, at this point, I want to come back to Sevie's original post.

"Be careful of the printed matter: you may not read it as it is written down.” FM Alexander

Right away we begin with a sort of maxim that is laid down as the an "obvious truth" by implication. It IS pretty obvious that MOST people do not read things as they are written down. At least not without a lot of training and practice.

Words are means by which Human Beings communicate and we call it a language. In order to communicate, you have to have an understanding of the words you use and that is where the problem arises.

The meanings of most of the words we use were learned in context with other words, and we assume from this that we know the meaning of the word. When you do this, and your understanding of a word is the same as its real meaning, no problem arises, However, when what you assume the meaning of a word is does NOT agree with the true meaning of the word, then misunderstanding is the result.

It is most rewarding to understand the words; by understanding, the true meaning of the word is meant. The best sources for obtaining this information are dictionaries, encyclopedias and dictionaries in OTHER languages."

What mystic Karl von Eckartshausen wrote above would have been true in his day and time and even 60 or so years ago in our own time. However, it is no longer true. As the hero, V, in the movie “V For Vendetta” said:

Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

Later in the movie, the character Valerie says in a flashback:

I remember how the meaning of words began to change. How unfamiliar words like "collateral" and "rendition" became frightening, while things like Norsefire and the Articles of Allegiance became powerful. I remember how "different" became dangerous. I still don't understand it, why they hate us so much.

Anyone familiar with George Orwell’s 1984 knows that he wrote about the idea that controlling a people’s definition of words, controlling the meanings that those words evoke in the minds of the general public, is integral to achieving actual thought control of the populace.

A forum member wrote a piece for SOTT last year which I have edited a bit below:

A close examination of the what is happening in the present time – even including the field of metaphysics and paranormal research - demonstrates a rather rapid and seemingly deliberate twisting and perverting of word meanings in the public consciousness. This is accomplished by altering, the very definitions of key words in our minds via the media and this is then reflected in the dictionaries we turn to when we wish to clarify terms that seem ambiguous or "off" when we hear them used by pundits in the corporate media.

Although a gradual alteration in spelling, pronunciation and meanings of words does occur naturally in any language – a process known as linguistic drift - it does not normally happen as rapidly as can be observed today. The speed with which this is occurring strongly suggests intent to control meanings and thereby, thought.

In the past 20 years, many words dealing with politically, sociologically and spiritually loaded concepts – including supernatural communication techniques - have been re-defined by media usage to convey quite different ideas from the original. Tertiary definitions have moved up rapidly in the dictionary’s lists of definitions, becoming secondary, even primary, and some of the original, primary definitions have vanished completely! For many words, only the "revised" definitions remain.

Let's take an example: the word "cult." You would certainly not expect such a word to be applied to a group that promotes the scientific examination of ideas and beliefs, would you?

Of course not!

But it is here that we discover an interesting thing: You see, the definition of the word "cult" is not precisely the same now as it was as recently as 30 years ago or even 10 years ago! The process of redefinition of the word “cult” is currently underway and the definition that we all know well is rapidly fading on the page. The word “cult” has begun to take on meanings that have political implications! "A group with a shared central belief that is far enough removed from the mainstream religious, moral or behavioral norms, within a society, as to set it apart therefrom." This easily leads to the perception that anyone or anything "different" from what is prescribed to be politically correct, must not only be wrong, but must be labeled as such – and the word “cult” is being adjusted for that purpose.

It is a certainty that Giordano Bruno, Galileo, and Copernicus had a "shared central belief" that the earth revolved around the sun, and this idea was far removed from the mainstream religious, moral or behavioral norms of the society that was dominated by the Catholic Church. Giordano was not accused of belonging to a “cult,” instead he was accused of being a heretic and was burned at the stake. Now, of course, we know that he was right all along.

Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples also had a "shared central belief" that was far removed from the "mainstream religious, moral, and even behavioral norms" of the society of their time. Jesus was accused of being possessed by Beelzebul because he performed exorcisms.

In social-scientific analyses, accusations such as “cult” or “heretic” or “possessed by demons” can be described as negative labels, while “good” titles of prominence (saint, statesman, holy) can be identified as positive labels.

Both negative and positive labels are social weapons whose purpose is to identify and control behavior that is outside the established range of what is called normal. Of course, one is entitled to ask just WHO establishes what is considered normal, how and why?

On this forum, we have a clearly stated Mission which is described in the forum guidelines. http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9553.0 At the end, these guidelines state the following:

We the moderators reserve the right to do anything and everything we see fit to ensure a friendly comfortable environment for our guests; that includes deleting you and all of your posts if you break any of these rules or act like a psychological deviant at any time past present or future. Oh yeah people, I said future, Tom Cruise has nothin' on us.

Now, that is stated rather humorously, but there IS a history behind it.

The fact is, we, the creators of this forum, that is, Ark and myself, have many, many years of interacting with people in a didactic setting, quite effectively, I should add. I also have many years experience as a hypnotherapist and researcher, mother of five children who have, I should add, turned out very well (the proof and the pudding and all that). I have also conducted an experiment in superluminal communication that has produced extremely interesting results. Ark has been a student of Gurdjieffian ideas for many, many years, as have I, as well. We worked on ourselves separately, and then together, effecting dramatic changes in our personal lives and our expanded reality. We then began sharing the results of our work on the net. This attracted people and we began to help them connect with each other and work on themselves in the same ways that we found gave rapid results. For years, this was done in private in an email discussion group. This work was so threatening to some that we have been under constant attack for all this time and, apparently, even before, if the Cs are to be credited.

The moderators on this forum have trained in this "school." That's what this forum is about. That is why there are Forum Guidelines written as above. It is our school, it is our sharing, it is our home. You are invited if you like what is here. If you don't, if you don't agree, if you think we are wrong, you are welcome to say so politely. We may or may not agree. If we don't agree, then please remember this: it is our school, it is our home that you are in.

I have been a member of the forum for four months now and I find this place interesting , informative and the people friendly , genuine and sincere in their desire to help others. And I thank everyone and I genuinely mean everyone who has taken the time to exchange with me and who have allowed me to stick my tuppence worth towards their posts.

This is an accurate depiction of this forum. We like to make things comfortable for our guests.

One thing puzzles me though and it surprises me and continues to surprise me and that is what I can summarise as a tendency towards personality profiling by the written word, by reading posters posts. It surprises me primarily because many of those whom I have read doing the diagnosis thing are obviously well read and I would have expect a certain caution on concluding on a profile , expecially a profile based on a few posts on a forum.

Actually, that is part of the course work; that is one of the things we have been studying for quite a number of years now: training the magnetic center to read accurately and quickly. And, as the Forum Guidelines mentioned above point out:

We the moderators reserve the right to do anything and everything we see fit to ensure a friendly comfortable environment for our guests; that includes deleting you and all of your posts if you break any of these rules or act like a psychological deviant at any time past present or future. Oh yeah people, I said future, Tom Cruise has nothin' on us.

That is to say, we have been doing this a LONG time.

As a therapist of 16 yrs who has daily contact with people I find the most damaging thing I can do for MYSELF and for My CLIENT is to box them in a profile. 'Here's your label , sorted, thats me sussed you now, now I can stop thinking'. It is something I tried and wanted to be able to do in my first year or two until I realised not only the trap that was being set for both of us but also the arrogance , the over estimation of my abiliy implicit in the assumption that I could understand someone in 2 or 3 sessions, over even worse, the first session.

Working in a therapeutic environment as you describe is VERY different from running a forum such as ours. You probably never (or rarely, if ever) have clients who come into your setting with the covert intent to destroy you and your practice. We do. Being able to tell the difference rapidly is important, and it is an important skill to learn for daily life. That's one of the things we try to teach. And we definitely have a LOT of experience with that sort of thing.

So, as I say, I have noticed new posters being boxed and 'tasted' and 'smelled' within three or four posts and would raise some questions which might be useful for self examination, I am applying this post to myself also.

Perhaps you should read some of the older threads on this forum and see how so many of them turned out? Perhaps a historical perspective will expand your awareness. You are looking at things only from YOUR point of view.

<snip>

There you have it, Is it useful to diagnose on internet where there is no way of verifying your conclusions by meeting the diagnosee and getting to know them and updating your model?
Is doing so an over estimation?

You only have to read a hundred or so threads on this forum, preserved for didactic reasons, to answer that question.

ADDED: When I am in doubt, or when the situation warrants a quick assessment, I DO ask the Cs about some individuals. But usually I prefer that we - and that includes the moderators - work things through and share our observations and train our magnetic centers. This is done so that we don't inadvertently hurt someone who is really seeking, BUT, at the same time, protect the innocent and wounded who are here to really work on themselves. You would be amazed at some of the agonizing that goes on in the Mods forum over how to deal with different people who are 1) obvious trolls 2) in difficulties 3) have potential but loaded with programs, and so on. Sometimes, the mods' discussions are more active than those on the open forum.

 

[Iron]

I hope you realize in time Steve, that people here do not intend to harm, or "be right".
Think, for a moment for all the quoting of books, all the referencing of different sources in the posts of the peoplo who are trying to help you see.
All of this takes energy and effort, and people are doing for your benefit, and of all others in this network.

Can this fact alone not prompt you to think "what if... they are seeing something I dont?"

I dont know if this is diverting from the topic or not.

Its very, very hard to be mirrored. You have all my sympathy, and I hope this whole exchange cracks something in your false persona.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Iron

Havent given up. I dont feel got at , no problems. thanks for your encouragements.

And that of others.

Approaching Infinity.

I don't get the logic in this. It seems a very convenient bind with no way out.

Now, Stevie may very well have had thoughts about posting something, but he no doubt has convinced himself that those thoughts were the sole reason motivating his decision to start this thread. It was an "innocent" question, strictly intellectual, no hidden motives. But the fact that he is so adamant says something. The prior thoughts and thought loops are merely the "excuse", the rationalization for the behavior which is emotionally/mechanically based (which is how ALL our behaviors are based). How can it be any different, in our current mechanical state?

So My reading is that insistence of innocence is proof of guilt.

Prosecutor to innocent boy: Did you break the window?
Innocent boy: I am adamant I did not break the window.
Prosecution to judge. I offer the boys insistence that he did not break the window as proof he broke the window.

 

[Beau]

Approaching Infinity.

I don't get the logic in this. It seems a very convenient double bind with no way out.

Now, Stevie may very well have had thoughts about posting something, but he no doubt has convinced himself that those thoughts were the sole reason motivating his decision to start this thread. It was an "innocent" question, strictly intellectual, no hidden motives. But the fact that he is so adamant says something. The prior thoughts and thought loops are merely the "excuse", the rationalization for the behavior which is emotionally/mechanically based (which is how ALL our behaviors are based). How can it be any different, in our current mechanical state?

So My reading is that insistence of innocence is proof of guilt.

Prosecutor to innocent boy: Did you break the window?
Innocent boy: I am adamant I did not break the window.
Prosecution to judge. I offer the boys insistence that he did not break the window as proof he broke the window.

It's ironic that you use courtroom lingo , since you are applying black-and-white thinking to the situation. I think the point AI was trying to make was that you may very well have felt your question was innocent, but that you're true motivations are not even clear to yourself. It's not that all unusual, in fact I'd say that a large majority of the population exists in the very same capacity. Your stubborn refusal to even consider that possibility is actually a reason why that exists. It's not about being guilty of anything (which is actually applying a rather negative connotation), other than being like the rest of humanity in that you are sleeping and not totally aware of yourself. You may feel this is a personal "diagnosis" and that this could be proven false through real-time interaction but really that is not necessary. Your words as written here suffice.

I'm not sure much else can be said to help you understand, just that in the future I hope that sometimes, maybe, you open yourself to the possibility that you may not be seeing yourself clearly and perhaps you may want to taking someone else's observations to heart, even if they cause you to feel angry and defensive.

 

[EmeraldHope]

Iron

Havent given up. I dont feel got at , no problems. thanks for your encouragements.

And that of others.

Approaching Infinity.

I don't get the logic in this. It seems a very convenient bind with no way out.

Now, Stevie may very well have had thoughts about posting something, but he no doubt has convinced himself that those thoughts were the sole reason motivating his decision to start this thread. It was an "innocent" question, strictly intellectual, no hidden motives. But the fact that he is so adamant says something. The prior thoughts and thought loops are merely the "excuse", the rationalization for the behavior which is emotionally/mechanically based (which is how ALL our behaviors are based). How can it be any different, in our current mechanical state?

So My reading is that insistence of innocence is proof of guilt.

Prosecutor to innocent boy: Did you break the window?
Innocent boy: I am adamant I did not break the window.
Prosecution to judge. I offer the boys insistence that he did not break the window as proof he broke the window.

Stevie, I am going to go out on a limb here and say ,that after all of the feedback and responses here, the fact that this one paragraph is what you focus on in a response, amazes me. Can you not see this paragraph within context of everything being said as a whole?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Approaching Infinity.

I don't get the logic in this.

You are still intellectualizing. Did you not read the examples I quoted from ISOTM?

It seems a very convenient bind with no way out.

Only if you stay stuck in your intellect.

So My reading is that insistence of innocence is proof of guilt.

Did you read what I said about "admitting"?

Prosecutor to innocent boy: Did you break the window?
Innocent boy: I am adamant I did not break the window.
Prosecution to judge. I offer the boys insistence that he did not break the window as proof he broke the window.

You are debating. Still intellectualizing. We are not dealing with an innocent boy accused of breaking a window. The issue is YOU. YOUR motivations. YOUR reactions. YOUR programs. If you do not agree, be honest and sincere. Say, "I don't believe you guys. I know with 100% certainty why I do with I do. I am aware of all my motivations, and nothing you guys say will change that because I know myself and you don't." Or say, "I don't think you guys are correct, but perhaps you are. I'll see what I can observe in myself." But don't use manipulative debate tactics to evade the issue by trying to portray this as a mere intellectual discussion. It's not.

Have you never seen a scenario such as the following:

Wife to angry husband: You're angry.
Husband: I'm not angry!!
Wife: Yes you are, just look at yourself.
Man: Stop trying to psychoanalyze me!

Have you never seen a person behave in such a way that they cannot see? And no amount of pointing it out allows them to do so? Of course, these people feel like the "innocent victim", but only because their false personality is so strong. For them there are two options: feel attacked and storm off in huff (as many so-called "seekers" did in response to Gurdjieff's tests), or tell themselves, "Well, I've seen the dynamic in others, so I know it might also be true in my case. But I can't see it now."

 

[Laura]

"You must realize that each man has a definite repertoire of roles which he plays in ordinary circumstances," said G. in this connection. "He has a role for every kind of circumstance in which he ordinarily finds himself in life; but put him into even only slightly different circumstances and he is unable to find a suitable role and for, a short time he becomes himself.

The study of the roles a man plays represents a very necessary part of self-knowledge. Each man's repertoire is very limited. And if a man simply says 'I' and 'Ivan Ivanich,' he will not see the whole of himself because 'Ivan Ivanich' also is not one; a man has at least five or six of them. One or two for his family, one or two at his office (one for his subordinates and another for his superiors), one for friends in a restaurant, and perhaps one who is interested in exalted ideas and likes intellectual conversation. And at different times the man is fully identified with one of them and is unable to separate himself from it.

To see the roles, to know one's repertoire, particularly to know its limitedness, is to know a great deal. But the point is that, outside his repertoire, a man feels very uncomfortable should something push him if only temporarily out of his rut, and he tries his hardest to return to any one of his usual roles. Directly he falls back into the rut everything at once goes smoothly again and the feeling of awkwardness and tension disappears. This is how it is in life; but in the work, in order to observe oneself, one must become reconciled to this awkwardness and tension and to the feeling of discomfort and helplessness. Only by experiencing this discomfort can a man really observe himself. And it is clear why this is so.

When a man is not playing any of his usual roles, when he cannot find a suitable role in his repertoire, he feels that he is undressed. He is cold and ashamed and wants to run away from everybody. But the question arises: What does he want? A quiet life or to work on himself?

If he wants a quiet life, he must certainly first of all never move out of his repertoire. In his usual roles he feels comfortable and at peace. But if he wants to work on himself, he must destroy his peace. To have them both together is in no way possible.

A man must make a choice. But when choosing the result is very often deceit, that is to say, a man tries to deceive himself. In words he chooses work but in reality he does not want to lose his peace. The result is that he sits between two stools. This is the most uncomfortable position of all. He does no work at all and he gets no comfort whatever.

But it is very difficult for a man to decide to throw everything to the devil and begin real work. And why is it difficult? Principally because his life is too easy and even if he considers it bad he is already accustomed to it. It is better for it to be bad, yet known. But here there is something new and unknown. He does not even know whether any result can be got from it or not. And besides, the most difficult thing here is that it is necessary to obey someone, to submit to someone. If a man could invent difficulties and sacrifices for himself, he would sometimes go very far. But the point here is that this is not possible. It is necessary to obey another or to follow the direction of general work, the control of which can belong only to one person. Such submission is the most difficult thing that there can be for a man who thinks that he is capable of deciding anything or of doing anything.

Of course, when he gets rid of these fantasies and sees what he really is, the difficulty disappears. This, however, can only take place in the course of work. But to begin to work and particularly to continue to work is very difficult and it is difficult because life runs too smoothly."

And:

"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.

Sometimes such tests are arranged intentionally. A man is placed in such a position that he is obliged to leave and he is fully justified in having a grievance either against the teacher or against some other person. And then he is watched to see how he will behave. A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary means for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?

"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."
"What happens to them for this?" asked one of the audience.

"Nothing—what could happen to them?" said G. "They are their own punishment. And what punishment could be worse?

"It is impossible to describe in full the way work in a group is conducted," continued G. "One must go through it. All that has been said up to now are only hints, the true meaning of which will only be revealed to those who go on with the work and learn from experience what 'barriers' mean and what difficulties they represent.

"Speaking in general the most difficult barrier is the conquest of lying. A man lies so much and so constantly both to himself and to others that he ceases to notice it. Nevertheless lying must be conquered. And the first effort required of a man is to conquer lying in relation to the teacher. A man must either decide at once to tell him nothing but the truth, or at once give up the whole thing.

"You must realize that the teacher takes a very difficult task upon himself, the cleaning and the repair of human machines. Of course he accepts only those machines that are within his power to mend. If something essential is broken or put out of order in the machine, then he refuses to take it. But even such machines, which by their nature could still be cleaned, become quite hopeless if they begin to tell lies. A lie to the teacher, even the most insignificant, concealment of any kind such as the concealment of something another has asked to be kept secret, or of something the man himself has said to another, at once puts an end to the work of that man, especially if he has previously made any efforts.

"Here is something you must bear in mind. Every effort a man makes increases the demands made upon him. So long as a man has not made any serious efforts the demands made upon him are very small, but his efforts immediately increase the demands made upon him. And the greater the efforts that are made, the greater the new demands.

"At this stage people very often make a mistake that is constantly made. They think that the efforts they have previously made, their former merits, so to speak, give them some kind of rights or advantages, diminish the demands to be made upon them, and constitute as it were an excuse should they not work or should they afterwards do something wrong. This, of course, is most profoundly false. Nothing that a man did yesterday excuses him today. Quite the reverse, if a man did nothing yesterday, no demands are made upon him today; if he did anything yesterday, it means that he must do more today. This certainly does not mean that it is better to do nothing. Whoever does nothing receives nothing.

"As I have said already, one of the first demands is sincerity. But there are different kinds of sincerity. There is clever sincerity and there is stupid sincerity, just as there is clever insincerity and stupid insincerity. Both stupid sincerity and stupid insincerity are equally mechanical. But if a man wishes to learn to be cleverly sincere, he must be sincere first of all with his teacher and with people who are senior to him in the work. This will be 'clever sincerity.' But here it is necessary to note that sincerity must not become 'lack of considering.' Lack of considering in relation to the teacher or in relation to those whom the teacher has appointed, as I have said already, destroys all possibility of any work. If he wishes to learn to be cleverly insincere he must be insincere about the work and he must learn to be silent when he ought to be silent with people outside it, who can neither understand nor appreciate it. But sincerity in the group is an absolute demand, because, if a man continues to lie in the group in the same way as he lies to himself and to others in life, he will never learn to distinguish the truth from a lie.

"The second barrier is very often the conquest of fear. A man usually has many unnecessary, imaginary fears. Lies and fears—this is the atmosphere in which an ordinary man lives. Just as the conquest of lying is individual, so also is the conquest of fear. Every man has fears of his own which are peculiar to him alone. These fears must first be found and then destroyed. The fears of which I speak are usually connected with the lies among which a man lives. You must realize that they have nothing in common with the fear of spiders or of mice or of a dark room, or with unaccountable nervous fears.

"The struggle against lying in oneself and the struggle against fears is the first positive work which a man begins to do.

"One must realize in general that positive efforts and even sacrifices in the work do not justify or excuse mistakes which may follow. On the contrary, things that could be forgiven in a man who has made no efforts and who has sacrificed nothing will not be forgiven in another who has already made great sacrifices.

"This seems to be unjust, but one must understand the law. There is, as it were, a separate account kept for every man. His efforts and sacrifices are written down on one side of the book and his mistakes and misdeeds on the other side. What is written down on the positive side can never atone for what is written down on the negative side. What is recorded on the negative side can only be wiped out by the truth, that is to say, by an instant and complete confession to himself and to others and above all to the teacher. If a man sees his fault but continues to justify himself, a small offense may destroy the result of whole years of work and effort. In the work, therefore, it is often better to admit one's guilt even when one is not guilty. But this again is a delicate matter and it must not be exaggerated. Otherwise the result will again be lying, and lying prompted by fear."

 

[Keit]

Prosecutor to innocent boy: Did you break the window?
Innocent boy: I am adamant I did not break the window.
Prosecution to judge. I offer the boys insistence that he did not break the window as proof he broke the window.

"When Nasreddin was a young he worked as a language teacher at an elementary school. One day he was teaching literature to his students. He was standing in front of his class and demonstrating how to read a poem. He recited this poem:

"Oh, my dear Lord,
Every part of my soul and body
overwhelmed by your spirit
all before me
looks like You always"

Suddenly his naughtiest student asked him, "What do you think if there is a fool before you?" Paying no attention, he continued his poem:

"Just looks like You!"

And the rest of the students laughed at the naughty student. The naughty student's face was blushing. Then Nasreddin analyzed the poem. Afterward Nasreddin gave them a poem about a troop that invaded another country. The naughty student wanted to make fun of Nasreddin by asking another difficult question. He asked, "Which one is the greatest achievement, a person who can invade another country, a person who can actually invade another country but he doesn't do it, or a person who prevents other persons from doing so?"

Nasreddin answered, "I don't know it for sure. But, I know a duty that is much more difficult than your question." "What's that", asked his student. "Teaching you to be able to respect an old man", said Nasreddin."

 

[Ca.]

And remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
~Confucius

We do not deal much in facts when we are contemplating ourselves.
~Mark Twain

You are your own judge. The verdict is up to you.
~Astrid Alauda

The outward man is the swinging door; the inner man is the still hinge.
~Eckhart

The words "I am" are potent words; be careful what you hitch them to. The thing you're claiming has a way of reaching back and claiming you.
~A.L. Kitselman

You have the Answer. Just get quiet enough to hear it.
~Pat Obuchowski

Your soul is all that you possess. Take it in hand and make something of it!
~Martin H. Fischer

We are sure to be losers when we quarrel with ourselves; it is civil war.
~Charles Caleb Colton

A man is ever apt to contemplate himself out of all proportion to his surroundings.

~Christina G. Rossetti

 

[seek10]

"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.

Sometimes such tests are arranged intentionally. A man is placed in such a position that he is obliged to leave and he is fully justified in having a grievance either against the teacher or against some other person. And then he is watched to see how he will behave. A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary means for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?

"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."
"What happens to them for this?" asked one of the audience.

"Nothing—what could happen to them?" said G. "They are their own punishment. And what punishment could be worse?

"It is impossible to describe in full the way work in a group is conducted," continued G. "One must go through it. All that has been said up to now are only hints, the true meaning of which will only be revealed to those who go on with the work and learn from experience what 'barriers' mean and what difficulties they represent.

"Speaking in general the most difficult barrier is the conquest of lying. A man lies so much and so constantly both to himself and to others that he ceases to notice it. Nevertheless lying must be conquered. And the first effort required of a man is to conquer lying in relation to the teacher. A man must either decide at once to tell him nothing but the truth, or at once give up the whole thing.

"You must realize that the teacher takes a very difficult task upon himself, the cleaning and the repair of human machines. Of course he accepts only those machines that are within his power to mend. If something essential is broken or put out of order in the machine, then he refuses to take it. But even such machines, which by their nature could still be cleaned, become quite hopeless if they begin to tell lies. A lie to the teacher, even the most insignificant, concealment of any kind such as the concealment of something another has asked to be kept secret, or of something the man himself has said to another, at once puts an end to the work of that man, especially if he has previously made any efforts.

"Here is something you must bear in mind. Every effort a man makes increases the demands made upon him. So long as a man has not made any serious efforts the demands made upon him are very small, but his efforts immediately increase the demands made upon him. And the greater the efforts that are made, the greater the new demands.

"At this stage people very often make a mistake that is constantly made. They think that the efforts they have previously made, their former merits, so to speak, give them some kind of rights or advantages, diminish the demands to be made upon them, and constitute as it were an excuse should they not work or should they afterwards do something wrong. This, of course, is most profoundly false. Nothing that a man did yesterday excuses him today. Quite the reverse, if a man did nothing yesterday, no demands are made upon him today; if he did anything yesterday, it means that he must do more today. This certainly does not mean that it is better to do nothing. Whoever does nothing receives nothing.

"As I have said already, one of the first demands is sincerity. But there are different kinds of sincerity. There is clever sincerity and there is stupid sincerity, just as there is clever insincerity and stupid insincerity. Both stupid sincerity and stupid insincerity are equally mechanical. But if a man wishes to learn to be cleverly sincere, he must be sincere first of all with his teacher and with people who are senior to him in the work. This will be 'clever sincerity.' But here it is necessary to note that sincerity must not become 'lack of considering.' Lack of considering in relation to the teacher or in relation to those whom the teacher has appointed, as I have said already, destroys all possibility of any work. If he wishes to learn to be cleverly insincere he must be insincere about the work and he must learn to be silent when he ought to be silent with people outside it, who can neither understand nor appreciate it. But sincerity in the group is an absolute demand, because, if a man continues to lie in the group in the same way as he lies to himself and to others in life, he will never learn to distinguish the truth from a lie.

"The second barrier is very often the conquest of fear. A man usually has many unnecessary, imaginary fears. Lies and fears—this is the atmosphere in which an ordinary man lives. Just as the conquest of lying is individual, so also is the conquest of fear. Every man has fears of his own which are peculiar to him alone. These fears must first be found and then destroyed. The fears of which I speak are usually connected with the lies among which a man lives. You must realize that they have nothing in common with the fear of spiders or of mice or of a dark room, or with unaccountable nervous fears.

"The struggle against lying in oneself and the struggle against fears is the first positive work which a man begins to do.

"One must realize in general that positive efforts and even sacrifices in the work do not justify or excuse mistakes which may follow. On the contrary, things that could be forgiven in a man who has made no efforts and who has sacrificed nothing will not be forgiven in another who has already made great sacrifices.

"This seems to be unjust, but one must understand the law. There is, as it were, a separate account kept for every man. His efforts and sacrifices are written down on one side of the book and his mistakes and misdeeds on the other side. What is written down on the positive side can never atone for what is written down on the negative side. What is recorded on the negative side can only be wiped out by the truth, that is to say, by an instant and complete confession to himself and to others and above all to the teacher. If a man sees his fault but continues to justify himself, a small offense may destroy the result of whole years of work and effort. In the work, therefore, it is often better to admit one's guilt even when one is not guilty. But this again is a delicate matter and it must not be exaggerated. Otherwise the result will again be lying, and lying prompted by fear."

thanks for the quote. How appropriate it is for the situation. Lots of lessons even to read.