The Believing Brain and C's clues...

[beetlemaniac]

Beyond that not much I can say, maybe it is quite abrupt. But in the past we've had huge headaches from non trolls, but people with issues. Check the baked noodles section, lol. Even veteran members started to play like they know and started to run off in another direction, trying to kick the forum to boost their false egos. It's one thing to express doubt and constructive criticism, like in your post- it's another when they engage in a "personality splitting" and project in order to get their bubble bigger :)

Thanks for the interesting discussion. It just struck me that what sedenion was doing when he was "getting his bubble bigger" was essentially trying to get his world-view confirmed by others in the forum. When things got too hot, and the discussion moved into what he REALLY thought and felt - his resistance came up. Essentially similar thing happening in his non-receptiveness to reading books. An objective world-view would shatter the self-centered nihilist stance that he feels he should rightfully take. I don't think members here can be told to NOT respond to people like sedenion, as everyone seems to have their own reasons and impulses that make them speak out and try to help others. If that were done, it would have been effectively the same as banning him, anyway. He was an energy sink, he only feeds the part of us that is apathetic and not interested in true evolution and growth. I admit to feeling somewhat entertained by his "rabble-rousing", however, as we are made up of many inclinations and feelings, I have decided that this feeling is not something I would want to identify with.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=Divide By Zero]
Beyond that not much I can say, maybe it is quite abrupt.
[/quote]

I can understand that perception. When someone is put under moderation and then banned, there are pieces of information that do not sometimes get presented in the general forum for the sake of energy optimization. This can create the perception of the banning being abrupt, but that may be due to all information not being visible to general members. At the cost of sounding cryptic, I will just say that things were worse than what was apparent from this user's published posts. There is considerable discussion that goes on among the admins, mods and ambassadors before the decision is taken to ban someone based on a user's published and unpublished posts. Such decisions are not taken lightly.

 

[Divide by Zero]

[quote author=Divide By Zero]
Beyond that not much I can say, maybe it is quite abrupt.

I can understand that perception. When someone is put under moderation and then banned, there are pieces of information that do not sometimes get presented in the general forum for the sake of energy optimization. This can create the perception of the banning being abrupt, but that may be due to all information not being visible to general members. At the cost of sounding cryptic, I will just say that things were worse than what was apparent from this user's published posts. There is considerable discussion that goes on among the admins, mods and ambassadors before the decision is taken to ban someone based on a user's published and unpublished posts. Such decisions are not taken lightly.
[/quote]

Oh yeah, I wasn't doubting the gravity of the situation. My gut was screaming, this guy has something off. It was good to probe him, scratch him and see.

I was saying it was abrupt from the outside, but we know with pathological people who "mean well" there can be worse damage than the obvious. It's easy to label it as paranoia, but it's not.... it's like you said- discussed and the red flags are what exactly we need when it comes to subconscious programs/traumatized people who "split"
Archaea- check out this thread about splitting and the dangers of it http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,31760.0.html
It's very sad, just dealt with it - my girlfriend's roomate who I knew growing up as a nice girl, turned out to be the biggest flip flop new age hipocrite after stress in her job- teaching.

 

[Phill4]

It seems the wind alone was enough scratch.

There is consideration i think, i guess a person who is LOOKING for the information, the knowledge needs to be in a certain state at a certain treshold to be able to interact with it.

And that is IF they are looking for it. It seems he was not, so that puts him elsewhere, in a different treshold of a different order.

 

[Archaea]

Is being considerate of other people's internal considerations being externally considerate?

Not if your in a place which seeks to learn and grow past that.
He has them, as we all do. But he clearly stated that he prefers to not face them.

I'm still a bit peturbed that he saw this place as entertainment. It's kind of new agey.
I had a friend like that, she would always say everyone's truth is right. But that's not true and will in fact just jumble up a goal, which we share here. The small goals are different but we are working on ourselves towards a common direction or so I hope.

I agree that being considerate of other people's internal considerations isn't being externally considerate. This is because there are third parties who aren't being considered.

I think we can say that the statement "everyone's truth is right" is technically correct due to the definition of truth, i.e. truth is objective. If you think of truth as being subjective then I agree that it's possible that the statement is not true.

There's a book called Blink by Malcolm Gladwell which explains why sometimes a snap feeling is a lot of times right, a gut instinct.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/feb/06/scienceandnature.society

Laura also wrote about it in the Wave, IIRC? and it's amazing how with practice, our pattern recognition/gut instinct can be right.

It's interesting, isn't it? This is probably dealt with elsewhere on the forum, but perhaps automatic reactions aren't always bad. I think when it comes to the physical and emotional centers, letting our automatic reactions have free reign is wise, as it let's the body do what needs to without interference.

When it comes to the intellectual centers, however, automatic reactions correspond to the activity of system 1, which I think leads to a herd mentality and group think. I've been thinking that in order to gain individuality we need to work on applying system 2 and active thinking.

Now, do you think there was no way for him to explain? I saw plenty of times when he had a chance to explain his ideas and this is where maybe my blink kicked in-> he was playing around and not showing his cards.
I don't like poker or other gambling, for that exact reason. He could have had nothing to stand on except his own self-importance. Fine, but remember Bluffing often wins games, not good cards. We don't play poker here. I'm sure the other forums that banned him got sick of it too.

I think he was explaining his ideas, but perhaps he could have used some strategic enclosure in order to have a somewhat more constructive conversation. And I agree that self importance could have indeed played a role, but it came across to me that it could have played a role on both sides of the discussion, and I don't mean that in an offensive way.

Who knows, maybe he had "good cards", but why can he come here- interact one way and not share? That's another possible blink. And don't get me started on people who talk like they got it figured out. It's funny that in my past friends, the few people who do that tended to accuse ME of doing that- as I was expressing questions and doubts. Projection in that manner is a red flag. Turns out that they were sure of their ideas and my doubts made them attack me, much like he was pushing that we do things a wrong way.

If we need to work on ourselves, for whatever reason, then logically there exists a point where we've done no work on ourselves. This would be a the beginning, and I think if we had really worked on ourselves then we would give others some slack. However, that thought might be a projection, so I'm open to discussion.

Gurdjieff gives me the impression that he despised people with a herd mentality and group thinking mentality, and while I think it was good that he was so open to his emotions and instincts, I think he may have fallen into the trap of judging people, which I understand creates blocks. I think it would be a shame if, after he did so much work, we didn't know any better.

Beyond that not much I can say, maybe it is quite abrupt. But in the past we've had huge headaches from non trolls, but people with issues. Check the baked noodles section, lol. Even veteran members started to play like they know and started to run off in another direction, trying to kick the forum to boost their false egos. It's one thing to express doubt and constructive criticism, like in your post- it's another when they engage in a "personality splitting" and project in order to get their bubble bigger :)

I had my share of personality splitting and projections. I was POed because I got banned and when I came back I decided that I had no right to be, and suppressed the emotions which led to projections and splitting and a whole lot of judgment towards myself and others. That is what lead me to debate the decision to ban sedenion.

If sedenion has the potential to pack truth and activate centers and do the Work, then it behooves the control system to use his own ego and self importance against himself to make sure that he can't use this forum to achieve any of that. This can be done be inserting a small something into a post somewhere, that most people won't notice, but will set sedenion off, so he will automatically create a situation where getting baned is justified.

I can understand that perception. When someone is put under moderation and then banned, there are pieces of information that do not sometimes get presented in the general forum for the sake of energy optimization. This can create the perception of the banning being abrupt, but that may be due to all information not being visible to general members. At the cost of sounding cryptic, I will just say that things were worse than what was apparent from this user's published posts. There is considerable discussion that goes on among the admins, mods and ambassadors before the decision is taken to ban someone based on a user's published and unpublished posts. Such decisions are not taken lightly.

That could explain the differences in the way we saw things. Still, I think that the following aren't good reasons for a ban:

1) Refusing to read books
2) Wasting time and energy
3) Being egotistic or self-important
4) Disagreeing with the majority
5) Reacting automatically

At a certain point I think it's possible that a temporary ban might be appropriate for someone who is off their face and just posting crazy stuff as soon as something pushes their buttons. This would give them some time to cool off and think things through, without it being permanent. After a few temporary bans, if they want to say what they want to say, then they would have to adapt. That's the theory anyway.

At any rate, since I'm not completely aware of what was going on regarding sedenion, I don't think I can continue debating the ban, unless the mods decide to fill us in, as I can't be sure I'm being correct and truthful.

 

[Phill4]

It's interesting, isn't it? This is probably dealt with elsewhere on the forum, but perhaps automatic reactions aren't always bad. I think when it comes to the physical and emotional centers, letting our automatic reactions have free reign is wise, as it let's the body do what needs to without interference.

When it comes to the intellectual centers, however, automatic reactions correspond to the activity of system 1, which I think leads to a herd mentality and group think. I've been thinking that in order to gain individuality we need to work on applying system 2 and active thinking.

The only problem i see with just leting the horse run wild is things like this one here and more, the intellectual center and the function of the prefrontal cotex is precisely that which stops people from runing wild without consideration for others.
There is an important distinction when it comes to the work on the sel, which is a key element in learning our reactions in a natural raw state, that is self-observation.

Without self-observation, a aim of learning ourselves , well these are just volatile reactions and that is not different than leading a normal life.

Another thing is that of justification or justifying one thing for another, just because we need to open up our backed up emotions, to broaden the process in those terms, doesn't mean that you outght to become a hyper reactive person just because, while those around you, family , friends, and people in general who struggle in this same society have to suffer your share of life.

In order to address what went on obiously there needs to be an understanding of what is going on inside him, what programs and personality traits are more prominent,
Example: a shy person has issues expresing himself
Example: a person desmostrates a pattern of constant disapproval for example.

Both are indications of an emotional blockage in a different way, therefore a different need, and therefore an intellectual inbalance at the subconscious level, his problem seemed to extend beyond himself when he indicated his situation with jobs.

The part may be you want to get to is that some people are ready get certain things and some are not, and some people you can demand certain things and some others you cannot, that is external consideration for people in the work, but again people need to pass certain tresholds in order to get it.

If they are not ready, it is more deteimental to them than it is helpful.

Feeding his reactionary loop would have caused more damage to him as this only reinforced that which he is originaly battling with.

If we need to work on ourselves, for whatever reason, then logically there exists a point where we've done no work on ourselves. This would be a the beginning, and I think if we had really worked on ourselves then we would give others some slack. However, that thought might be a projection, so I'm open to discussion.

Gurdjieff gives me the impression that he despised people with a herd mentality and group thinking mentality, and while I think it was good that he was so open to his emotions and instincts, I think he may have fallen into the trap of judging people, which I understand creates blocks. I think it would be a shame if, after he did so much work, we didn't know any better.

The problem is that the interpretation is limited.
Im sure we can agree that coming in contact with the work does not mean instant perfection, it takes everything to achive results and it is a process, if you take this idea on the base that it is a process you have a landscape, now you can formulate, it is not that we have not done the work from the beginning but that may be certain aspects in certain members he or she is not at the stage or treshold while he/she is at the step for a different set of reponsabilities, once done the person can then take another step, which includes more reponsabilities, more commitement, more external consideration and more potential, in that process you put someone a step behind you.

Mind you, a step behind not on the same step or avobe, or trusting all secrets of the school to that person just uppon request or for dislike to the structure.

A person needs to be ready for certain things and to some degree open.


G. Also had numerous gatherings where he held many people for lectures, what about those which disagreed to how he handdle it or what he said in these meetings? There are several accounts of such.

What i mean is that while there are people who are biased towards the group from an emotional reason, which or sense of pretection towards the network and the work being done these feelings can be unconscious and thus mechanical, it is bothersome and reactions happen in an undirected way,
And there are reactions which are in awareness of the feelings and needs to keep the structure together with the AIM in mind.


Just keep in mind that external consideration isn't letting others do their free will with your life so to say, PART of it is to not become a burden for others while we are in rhis process, and agravate other people's situations, he was hitting a wall constantly and even had the world stopped the reaction in him was already out of his own control, our answer were furthering his brhavior and making it worse not because what we are but because what we represent to him at an emotional level.

The idea of cuting people some slack is seen countless times in different ways, but that is already within the context of learning, and mistakes are also in accodance with the step in the lader the person is in, thus the demands, level of comitement and "secrets" they can be trusted.

So on his step, he WAS given chances.


I think it is inportant to keep these detail in mind, G. Explained in his words about what a person can give and can be demanded of and the mistakes they can make within that conext.

One does not have a million chances in life, so there goes the idea that people do not value what comes easy to them, it seems you do, and your attitude was very different than his.


Just think of a person who needs to leave everything behind to sacrifice everything in the other Ways, in search for the truth, the incredible efforts and all that it takes such person, if a person doesn't show a wish to learn in their own individual way they express themselves, now one can violate that will. That even if transitory and reactionary is his.
Meeting up halfway in an argument is not a terrible sacrifice.

 

[Archaea]

The only problem i see with just leting the horse run wild is things like this one here and more, the intellectual center and the function of the prefrontal cotex is precisely that which stops people from runing wild without consideration for others.
There is an important distinction when it comes to the work on the sel, which is a key element in learning our reactions in a natural raw state, that is self-observation.

Without self-observation, a aim of learning ourselves , well these are just volatile reactions and that is not different than leading a normal life.

I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure I agree. Seth says that we can trust our emotions, and that they won't betray us. This means we can let the horse run wild without being concerned that it'll be inconsiderate towards others. In fact, I'm of the opinion that the horse itself knows and will lead us to the opening of the higher emotional center, which will mean that we'll have a true love and affection for others and the Earth and universe and what-not.

I think that part of the task of self-observation is to stop the intellect from trying to control the emotions, and to just observe the emotions as they are and how they appear. I think doing this will reduce tension in the guts and improve digestion, as well as increase the rate of manifestations due to trans-dimensional windows.

Another thing is that of justification or justifying one thing for another, just because we need to open up our backed up emotions, to broaden the process in those terms, doesn't mean that you outght to become a hyper reactive person just because, while those around you, family , friends, and people in general who struggle in this same society have to suffer your share of life.

My understanding at the moment is that justification is a function of the intellect, so the intellect can stop making justifications without involving the emotions. Also the association of not controlling the emotions with becoming a hyper reactive person might be a false belief, a belief perhaps intentionally created to prevent people from trusting their emotions.

In order to address what went on obiously there needs to be an understanding of what is going on inside him, what programs and personality traits are more prominent,
Example: a shy person has issues expresing himself
Example: a person desmostrates a pattern of constant disapproval for example.

Both are indications of an emotional blockage in a different way, therefore a different need, and therefore an intellectual inbalance at the subconscious level, his problem seemed to extend beyond himself when he indicated his situation with jobs.

Fair enough, but do you think he he could have changed? And also, you said something about enjoying some of the conversation with sedenion, so do you think you could have even become friends at some point?

The part may be you want to get to is that some people are ready get certain things and some are not, and some people you can demand certain things and some others you cannot, that is external consideration for people in the work, but again people need to pass certain tresholds in order to get it.

If they are not ready, it is more deteimental to them than it is helpful.

I agree that people need to be ready to receive something before they can get it, but I think it can only be detrimental if it's forced on them in some way.

Feeding his reactionary loop would have caused more damage to him as this only reinforced that which he is originaly battling with.

I agree, in fact I think it was potentially quite damaging.

The problem is that the interpretation is limited.
Im sure we can agree that coming in contact with the work does not mean instant perfection, it takes everything to achive results and it is a process, if you take this idea on the base that it is a process you have a landscape, now you can formulate, it is not that we have not done the work from the beginning but that may be certain aspects in certain members he or she is not at the stage or treshold while he/she is at the step for a different set of reponsabilities, once done the person can then take another step, which includes more reponsabilities, more commitement, more external consideration and more potential, in that process you put someone a step behind you.

Mind you, a step behind not on the same step or avobe, or trusting all secrets of the school to that person just uppon request or for dislike to the structure.

A person needs to be ready for certain things and to some degree open.

I'll agree to that, although I should state that I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics and workings of the staircase.

G. Also had numerous gatherings where he held many people for lectures, what about those which disagreed to how he handdle it or what he said in these meetings? There are several accounts of such.

What i mean is that while there are people who are biased towards the group from an emotional reason, which or sense of pretection towards the network and the work being done these feelings can be unconscious and thus mechanical, it is bothersome and reactions happen in an undirected way,
And there are reactions which are in awareness of the feelings and needs to keep the structure together with the AIM in mind.

OK.

Just keep in mind that external consideration isn't letting others do their free will with your life so to say, PART of it is to not become a burden for others while we are in rhis process, and agravate other people's situations, he was hitting a wall constantly and even had the world stopped the reaction in him was already out of his own control, our answer were furthering his brhavior and making it worse not because what we are but because what we represent to him at an emotional level.

I agree with this too.

The idea of cuting people some slack is seen countless times in different ways, but that is already within the context of learning, and mistakes are also in accodance with the step in the lader the person is in, thus the demands, level of comitement and "secrets" they can be trusted.

I'm not convinced that secrets are necessary in spiritual "schools." As like you said if a person isn't ready they're just not going to get it. When it comes to other things I agree that keeping things quiet is a good idea, for example with nuclear weapons.

Just think of a person who needs to leave everything behind to sacrifice everything in the other Ways, in search for the truth, the incredible efforts and all that it takes such person, if a person doesn't show a wish to learn in their own individual way they express themselves, now one can violate that will. That even if transitory and reactionary is his.
Meeting up halfway in an argument is not a terrible sacrifice.

Fair enough.

 

[Phill4]

I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure I agree. Seth says that we can trust our emotions, and that they won't betray us. This means we can let the horse run wild without being concerned that it'll be inconsiderate towards others. In fact, I'm of the opinion that the horse itself knows and will lead us to the opening of the higher emotional center, which will mean that we'll have a true love and affection for others and the Earth and universe and what-not.

I think that part of the task of self-observation is to stop the intellect from trying to control the emotions, and to just observe the emotions as they are and how they appear. I think doing this will reduce tension in the guts and improve digestion, as well as increase the rate of manifestations due to trans-dimensional windows.

If i may, can you share Seth, i am unfamiliar with him.
But is think you are talking about three different things,

1)Any person can kill and rape and justify their search for enlightment on that statement
Any newage person can commit suicide because they interpret their euphoria for emotions and commit suicide.
what seth says in that context seems a justification.

2)The healthy re-connection and balancing of all centers is what can help us achieve this state of higer awareness. So it is best to keep researching and not reach to conclussions to quick.

3)But if there is a way to healthy address traumas and emotional blockages (like therapy or any other method or work on the emotional area) that can help us release alot of this bagage that lies in our subconscious, that is the way to go, on that conext of therapy and self search, of relsease, expression is important.


Being inconsiderate to others and ignoring our other own fellings associated with the construct consideration in our mind, well, a self-deception at best a tragedy at worst. And may even be contradictory.


But i guess the question is, do you consider a person should not have restrains of their "emotions" which are often the result of programs ,under any circumstances?
On this light, and for the purpose of really ask these questions to find real answers, the research in the neurological field about psychopaths, is that the have a very low activity on the prefrontal cortext which secrets also GABA, a neurotransmiter which can inhibit the activity of the limbic system, so the have not restrains, no consideration for others and no sense of consequences.
So Seth statement, as far as what you share fits well within this explanation.

So there is a need to disambiguate what allowing expression of emotions is.

My understanding at the moment is that justification is a function of the intellect, so the intellect can stop making justifications without involving the emotions. Also the association of not controlling the emotions with becoming a hyper reactive person might be a false belief, a belief perhaps intentionally created to prevent people from trusting their emotions.

Justifying is a multicausal and multicasual process if we want to call it strictly what it is,
But for the sake of comvenience, all people express justification according to how they are configured, but basically is a defence mechanism, can sometimes be a program, and often a form of self lying.
The wrong working of the thinking center, adn the thinking center doing things the emotional center should be doing.
So attending to all superficial emotions is actually dangerous, learning our emotions and process those which created programs and instability is the goal to become free of that which torments us.

I do think sedenion got some emotional release with this, but he doesn't decide intellectually what that is, for that you need alot of awareness about yourself as you can imagine.

Fair enough, but do you think he he could have changed? And also, you said something about enjoying some of the conversation with sedenion, so do you think you could have even become friends at some point?

He can change, if that is his conscious choice.

I'll agree to that, although I should state that I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics and workings of the staircase.

Put someone a step behind you and someone puts you a step forward, acording to G.
The element of inportance is that we Use these oportunities to learn, and to grow and help others grow as best as we can.
He isn't excluded from the universe he was just prevented from posting, he can read.
If sedenion was to make a conscious choice for example, and makes a determination to find the truth, not our lies and petty arguments but the truth and understands all these concepts, the universe will open a way for him. Then the sedenion we know now wont be the sedendion that will be asking the universe for answers.

I'm not convinced that secrets are necessary in spiritual "schools." As like you said if a person isn't ready they're just not going to get it. When it comes to other things I agree that keeping things quiet is a good idea, for example with nuclear weapons.

Some things work like that some things are more direct.
Think of the corruption on Reiki.

Secrets are used metaphorically or literally.
Think personal information.

 

[Archaea]

If i may, can you share Seth, i am unfamiliar with him.

From Wikipedia

The Seth Material is a collection of writing dictated by Jane Roberts to her husband from late 1963 until her death in 1984. Roberts claimed the words were spoken by a discarnate entity named Seth.[1] The material is regarded as one of the cornerstones of New Age philosophy, and the most influential channelled text of the post-World War II "New Age" movement, other than the Edgar Cayce books and A Course in Miracles.[2] Jon Klimo writes that the Seth books were instrumental in bringing the idea of channeling to a broad public audience.

There are a few books dictated by Seth floating around.

But is think you are talking about three different things,

1)Any person can kill and rape and justify their search for enlightment on that statement
Any newage person can commit suicide because they interpret their euphoria for emotions and commit suicide.
what seth says in that context seems a justification.

2)The healthy re-connection and balancing of all centers is what can help us achieve this state of higer awareness. So it is best to keep researching and not reach to conclussions to quick.

3)But if there is a way to healthy address traumas and emotional blockages (like therapy or any other method or work on the emotional area) that can help us release alot of this bagage that lies in our subconscious, that is the way to go, on that conext of therapy and self search, of relsease, expression is important.

Seth says that the proper function of the intellect is to determine how the personality interacts with the environment. An improper use would be for the intellect to try to control every aspect of the body or the emotions. In A magical approach he gives the example of an archer who'd like to hit a target, he says that the correct use of the intellect is to decide to hit the target and trust that the body will do all the necessary calculations itself. So the archer decides to hit the target and strikes a pose and his body does the rest.

Extending that, we can say that in order to have the lower centers operating harmoniously, the intellect only needs to determine what they are going to do, not how they are going to do it. So in the same way that the archer can trust his body to do what it needs to do to hit the target, he can also trust his emotions. Emotions are a part of ourselves and if we don't trust them, then a part of ourselves doesn't trust another part, and this is contrary to unity.

Because the intellect's job is to determine how the personality interacts with the environment, it can decide how to express the emotions, so it can decide whether or not it wants to judge or justify, or honestly communicate. But before it can do this it needs to acknowledge the emotion which is being felt and not attempt to control or suppress it, as this'll create a disharmony between the lower emotional and lower intellectual centers.

Does that make sense?

But i guess the question is, do you consider a person should not have restrains of their "emotions" which are often the result of programs ,under any circumstances?
On this light, and for the purpose of really ask these questions to find real answers, the research in the neurological field about psychopaths, is that the have a very low activity on the prefrontal cortext which secrets also GABA, a neurotransmiter which can inhibit the activity of the limbic system, so the have not restrains, no consideration for others and no sense of consequences.
So Seth statement, as far as what you share fits well within this explanation.

So there is a need to disambiguate what allowing expression of emotions is.

I don't think we need to worry about becoming psychopaths, if we do something wrong we feel bad and we shouldn't suppress that feeling.

Fair enough, but do you think he he could have changed? And also, you said something about enjoying some of the conversation with sedenion, so do you think you could have even become friends at some point?

He can change, if that is his conscious choice.

Sometimes I think this forum would be better off without me. I feel like there are people out there who automatically think what I say is horse crap, so the more I try to help the more people go in the opposite direction. With this sedenion business I really thought he got the raw end of the deal and just wasn't considered by anybody, and when I said something it seemed like it confirmed to everybody that the right decision was taken.

Perhaps people here would make faster progress if I just said nothing. I'm thinking about asking a mod to delete my account.

I'll agree to that, although I should state that I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics and workings of the staircase.

Put someone a step behind you and someone puts you a step forward, acording to G.

I understand that, I don't understand why it has to be like that. Is it a social construct, so if everybody agrees to act accordingly, then the dissemination of information through a network is optimized, so is it an algorithm? Or is it a reality construct, where it has to be like this because it's a universal law? Either way it could probably be understood mathematically, and I don't know the mathematics, so I can't really talk about the staircase.

The element of inportance is that we Use these oportunities to learn, and to grow and help others grow as best as we can.

I can understand this, this is much simpler. :)

Some things work like that some things are more direct.
Think of the corruption on Reiki.

Secrets are used metaphorically or literally.
Think personal information.

OK, something to think about.

 

[Phill4]

Seth says that the proper function of the intellect is to determine how the personality interacts with the environment. An improper use would be for the intellect to try to control every aspect of the body or the emotions. In A magical approach he gives the example of an archer who'd like to hit a target, he says that the correct use of the intellect is to decide to hit the target and trust that the body will do all the necessary calculations itself. So the archer decides to hit the target and strikes a pose and his body does the rest.

Extending that, we can say that in order to have the lower centers operating harmoniously, the intellect only needs to determine what they are going to do, not how they are going to do it. So in the same way that the archer can trust his body to do what it needs to do to hit the target, he can also trust his emotions. Emotions are a part of ourselves and if we don't trust them, then a part of ourselves doesn't trust another part, and this is contrary to unity.

Because the intellect's job is to determine how the personality interacts with the environment, it can decide how to express the emotions, so it can decide whether or not it wants to judge or justify, or honestly communicate. But before it can do this it needs to acknowledge the emotion which is being felt and not attempt to control or suppress it, as this'll create a disharmony between the lower emotional and lower intellectual centers.

Does that make sense?

It does thank you, It puts it in perspective a very well, but then there is the problem of us acting through this overworked intellectual center doing "emotions" when in reality are either programs or the resulting emotion of a program while confusing it as an emotion.

This missinterpretation of confusing a program for an emotion what i find needs to be looked into, often we have programs that express themselves as anger (i'm angry!!!) when in reality the underlying emotion is sadness or whatever, then the person acting on this anger thinking it belongs to him, and thinking expressing it is not betraying his real emotions is a fallacy of this phenomena of the thinking center creating emotions.

What is quoted also is i teresting and brings to mind how thinking patterns can be also housed on our moving center (as in kinestiology).

I just found the statement "we should act on our emotions without consideration for others", a bit without context in the sense that anyone can missinterpret and justify this while acting through a program and excuse it, as a result of the wrong working of the intellectual center.

I don't think we need to worry about becoming psychopaths, if we do something wrong we feel bad and we shouldn't suppress that feeling.

No i mean anyone can excuse their "emotions" under that explanation that they should just lash out without considering others. My fear come that psychopaths themselves take this out of context, like when they use any moral values to hold someone captive.

I wholheartedly agree that these particular "emotional blockages" should be released, to then find a way to express them in a healthy manner. Outside of the influence of the intial program that kept constrained the emotion.

Fair enough, but do you think he he could have changed? And also, you said something about enjoying some of the conversation with sedenion, so do you think you could have even become friends at some point?

He can change, if that is his conscious choice.

Sometimes I think this forum would be better off without me. I feel like there are people out there who automatically think what I say is horse crap, so the more I try to help the more people go in the opposite direction. With this sedenion business I really thought he got the raw end of the deal and just wasn't considered by anybody, and when I said something it seemed like it confirmed to everybody that the right decision was taken.

Archaea, it is important to note that he chose this in his own awareness, you can't bear his cross, we help those who truly wish help,
It is understandable you wish to help others we all want to, but we cannot cross that line of his chossing even if just at the level of words.
No one is judging you for trying to help someone, but the kind of help we can provide over the forum is not the type of help we can offer, you are trying to help and did what you though was right.
you acted different when you joined because your contributions were not of intentional manipulation, you were looking for your own answers he was playing around for reasons that are still unclear to me.
It is like all the people we meet in the street, or family , sometimes as much as we love them, they cannot be helped to the degree of help we are ready to help ourselves and so we have to respect their level of developement.
Actions speak louder than words, we can go on and on arguing about what he chose or not chose to say but the actions count, he was considered for what he came here to do.

And i beg to differ, i actually am reading your thread of silencing the mind, which as strangely enough is quoting the things i unknowingly quoted on a thread i opened of meditation and inspiration.

You feel it was unfair, those are your feelings period, because the intial interaction you had in the forum maybe, but that doesn't amount to contribution.

We are all looking for the truth, how colinear was sedenion with our choice? It is hard to know, but he knew the limits, and decided to cross them. If at the basic level he can manage that, it is imposible to go further.

Perhaps people here would make faster progress if I just said nothing. I'm thinking about asking a mod to delete my account.

It is not personal, and progress depends on each person individually, efforts to change one's situation are individual, and it is called the work on the self, Your interaction shouldn't determine who progress and who doesn't. So i don't see a coorelation.
If you are looking to work on yourself as G. Explains, it is an individual progress and the relationship one person has with oneself. Posting as long as contribution to find the truth and work on our individual illusions and delussions, programs, habits etc which we all have amounts. Honest mistakes can bring about great discussions and learning.
I don't think i have the whole cake on all of this, so i am willing to have this exchange for the sake of understanding better and in hopes you also take something from what i am giving.
I assume you understand that our beliefs are often in the way, so it is something i am practing now, i am open to listen and to have this discussion as i said to sedenion to challenge what i have and learn what i can, to question and test my own theories, otherwise im not doing anything. That is my personal choice in this interaction.

 

[Phill4]

I'll agree to that, although I should state that I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics and workings of the staircase.

Put someone a step behind you and someone puts you a step forward, acording to G.

I understand that, I don't understand why it has to be like that. Is it a social construct, so if everybody agrees to act accordingly, then the dissemination of information through a network is optimized, so is it an algorithm? Or is it a reality construct, where it has to be like this because it's a universal law? Either way it could probably be understood mathematically, and I don't know the mathematics, so I can't really talk about the staircase.

I don't know if you are familiar with ISOTM, but it is something related to what your wrote in our exchange about "secrets", each step of the later symbols the level the person is reacdy to understand, and achieve certain things. If they are not ready they wont get it. That applies here.
You can't put all the information in a person's hands, like if a person is taught algebra without the basics in aritmetics, once a person understands all basic four operations then the student is in a state, where he can be ready for algebra, and when the person is done learning the principles of algebra, then electronic enginiering can take place. Steps.
The first step is have certain skill/abilities/knowledge/understandings and affinity ,the second once in contact with the forum, to do certain specific readings to get the concepts in orther to be in a state where the person understands to a certain degree the context of the conversation and the subjects being discussed.
Then the person needs to understand the aim and have aims for himself which flow with the aims of the school.
All those things imply alot of work, interaction, posting, working on one's programs, deal with certain traumas etc etc etc.
In the analogy, sedenion refused the basic of aritmetics, he didn't move from base 1, and jumped under the assumption he had the whole cake and he ought not to question the validity of his own thinking.

The element of inportance is that we Use these oportunities to learn, and to grow and help others grow as best as we can.

I can understand this, this is much simpler. :)

That is good feedback about my conplex writting style :) , i apologize if i sound to complicated, but there are many things that i feel needed to be clarified as far as my knowledge allows.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Fair enough, but do you think he he could have changed? And also, you said something about enjoying some of the conversation with sedenion, so do you think you could have even become friends at some point?

He can change, if that is his conscious choice.

Sometimes I think this forum would be better off without me. I feel like there are people out there who automatically think what I say is horse crap, so the more I try to help the more people go in the opposite direction. With this sedenion business I really thought he got the raw end of the deal and just wasn't considered by anybody, and when I said something it seemed like it confirmed to everybody that the right decision was taken.

Perhaps people here would make faster progress if I just said nothing. I'm thinking about asking a mod to delete my account.

You are here for an aim, a purpose- correct? What if what you do is forget that you are helpful and productive. Heck, you helped me dig deep on this whole belief stuff! But then, like any of us, we can empathise with someone pathological, even if they aren't directly attacking us- they play perfect or "pity me" (remember Sedenion gave us his pity story and then put a wall around it- you never did this).
Honestly, he doesn't deserve your defense, but YOU DO. You think you are a burden, but are far from that. Sedenion thought he wasn't a bother, he didn't even worry or wonder about that- to him nothing seemed a big deal, everything a joke or useless... it became entertainment.

I don't feel you doing that!


When Felipe talks about secrets, after reading his thread- I remembered now the danger of revealing secrets! Let's say it's not so much a secret, but a way of explaining things to those who are capable of understanding. In my case, at work, I can usually intuitively find a solution to a complicated problem. If I told one of my bosses who doesn't believe in intuition solving these problems, it would be very troublesome- they would subconsciously "sabotage" me. Next problem, would be magically tied to my repair, even if there is no fact. I could spend hours explaining how my senses lead to my troubleshooting steps to confirm and fix the problem. It won't matter- their belief system is set- you can't do what I just did. And now, I'm a liar in their minds that they won't trust.

On the other hand, if someone understands the technique, I do tell them how I "sensed" the solution. If they ask, I can explain more- and I can go to the points of confirmation and testing. No problems here. They are worthy of my "secret" because they are open minded, unlike some bosses.

So, in a similar way - telling the truth to everyone is weakness, even a paranoid delusion that can lead you into trouble!

 

[Archaea]

I just found the statement "we should act on our emotions without consideration for others", a bit without context in the sense that anyone can missinterpret and justify this while acting through a program and excuse it, as a result of the wrong working of the intellectual center.

I think there may have been a bit of a misunderstanding, what I said was:

This means we can let the horse run wild without being concerned that it'll be inconsiderate towards others.

What I meant here was that we can trust ourselves not to be inconsiderate towards others, we don't need to worry and get all neurotic about being considerate to others because if we trust our emotions they'll automatically tell us when we've done something wrong, provided our emotions are functioning correctly.

This misunderstanding is interesting IMO, because someone could have read it the same way you read it, and then have passed judgment, deciding that I'm a horrible person and not worth their time or energy, ever. Whereas, if they didn't pass judgment and even went as far as communicating what they thought about what I said, then the misunderstanding won't do any damage and might even be cleared up, like in this case.

At any rate, I've thought about whether or not I'll get my account deleted and I feel it'll be good for me and maybe even good for others if I don't post here anymore. So I'd like to politely ask a mod to delete my account.

Goodbye, good luck & thank you.

 

[Phill4]

This misunderstanding is interesting IMO, because someone could have read it the same way you read it, and then have passed judgment, deciding that I'm a horrible person and not worth their time or energy, ever. Whereas, if they didn't pass judgment and even went as far as communicating what they thought about what I said, then the misunderstanding won't do any damage and might even be cleared up, like in this case.

It is by the same token a missunderstanding on your part given everything else i wrote above, regarding the importance of having awareness of others and finding the place/time and a healthy way to express our emotions and differentiation between emotions and programs.

My time and energy was spend to dicuss this topic and explain my individual point of view for discussion.
This is a reseach platform and there is nothing personal here.

 

[Divide by Zero]

I listened to this show with Peter Levenda, who is focused on the supernatural aspects of conspiracies.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L8QIc9WzSw



It was interesting, but nothing solid. Somehow JFK's assasination was connected to the occult with UFO's. OK, but there is solid evidence as we have learned that the CIA and other powerful forces set it up.


Then I see his blind belief twisting data. At the end, he mentions having experiences at a young age and how important it is to have a good psychological profile before delving into these things. I agree and this is key to the work. If your mind is lying to you, how can you objectively see the supernatural- if it is your own mind or someone else lying to you???


Then he brings up the Bicameral Mind theory which I feel, gives a huge clue to the problem of belief in a mind that might not be properly integrated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)


The theory states that a while back our brains did not have a solid link between the hemispheres (via the corpus callosum bundle of nerves we have now). Because of that, the ideas that came from the right hemisphere showed up as voices and visions (like schizophrenia today)- the way to convey information to the left brain without having a direct link.


Annoyingly, he forces his belief onto the study of this, saying that we shut it off. Nowhere has Jaynes said this in his theory, but that the voices were no longer needed because that side was better integrated into our consciousness.


It just reminds me of how a subjective experience that happens to any of us can twist our judgement of future events, like his focus on JFK's assassination being done by supernatural means while there is plain jane solid evidence of a PHYSICAL 3d conspiracy. Honestly, if it could be done via the supernatural, would you even need a shooter? It would be easy to induce a heart attack or stroke then!