The code of the Psychopath according to Gurdjieff?

[sigh]

Sorry Anart I assumed you were familiar with at least the first page of Beelzebub's Tales...

"...,I find it necessary on the first page of this book, now ready for publication, to give the following advice "Read each of my written expositions thrice
First—at least as you have already become mechanized to read all your contemporary books and newspapers,
Second—as if you were reading aloud to another person,
And only third—try to fathom the gist of my writings.
Only then will you be able to count upon forming your own impartial judgment, proper to yourself alone, on my writings. And only then can my hope be actualized that according to your understanding you will obtain the specific benefit for yourself which I anticipate, and which I wish for you with all my being."

Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. ... But you never stop yourself in what you are doing or in what you are saying because you believe in yourself. You must stop inwardly and observe. .. . And if you observe in this way, paying with yourself, without self-pity, giving up all your supposed riches for a moment of reality, perhaps you will suddenly see something you have never before seen in yourself until this day.

 

[sigh]

So, is this how you intend to go on? Drop pearls of wisdom then decline to answer any questions that members of the Forum may have about them?

Have you read the Forum Rules, and do you understand that this is an environment set up for the purpose of Networking and sharing Knowledge -- not merely the statement of "judgments, proper to myself alone"? I have no way of knowing whether your sarcastically presented "credentials" are valid, but I do observe that so far your postings on this Forum seem to have more to do with Self-Importance than Objective Reality. At the very least one would have thought that so many years of study would have led to your becoming familiar with the basic concept of "External Consideration."
Somehow I don't think you're going to find what you're looking for here.

I disagree that knowledge can be shared - you have to work for it.
As for my so-called credentials there was no sarcasm intended... I sincerely do believe they are paltry... especially in comparison to the 50+ years (and a thousand times more intense than my own efforts) of the students and teachers I practised with.

...and unexpectedly here I have found exactly what I was looking for but only just now realized it - opportunities to struggle with myself.

 

[PepperFritz]

...and unexpectedly here I have found exactly what I was looking for but only just now realized it - opportunities to struggle with myself.

How very cryptic. I'll leave you to it.



.

 

[anart]

Sorry Anart I assumed you were familiar with at least the first page of Beelzebub's Tales...

Ahh, and now a reaction from 'sigh' - and more fishing for reactions - apologies 'sigh', but you are rather out of your depth here - and I'm being extremely generous with that statement. If anything you'd written thus far made any objective sense whatsoever - if it were even vaguely entertaining in an 'oh, look who's here to try to feed now' way, then it might be worth the forum's time - at this point since neither is the case, enough really is enough - deviant is one thing, but deviant AND boring? (not really worth much time, is it?)

 

[cholas]

sigh,
If you were even remotely interested in what this forum is about, here's a little thought for you on how you might/might have approached the situation differently:

Having an opinion that Gurdjieff was a psychopath is fine, that's your take. However a thorough read of the various threads on his Work would have given you a sneak-preview of what nearly all persons participating here have come to understand. Seeing how your opinion is just that and has no real value here, you would considerately move on to some other cyberspace that is homey with your ideas. No learning involved since you already know....

On the other hand, if you truly were sincere and reading all the various threads dealing with Gurdjieff didn't answer your questions, then it might be a good time to ASK (heavy emphasis). Something like "what do you folks think about...." and a discussion might have ensued, depending on how open to learning you are. Your past "study" is basically worthless, so no need to jump on the ego-train. Best to drop it all and start anew imo. Do you understand External Consideration?

If you are indeed a troll just looking for some emotional feedback to get your jollies, you are just another of the thousands as previously pointed out, and many here such as anart have learned to pick you out rather quickly. Thanks for the continuing lesson for me if this is the case which seems rather likely at this point.

Hare's checklist is based on conforming to the rules of
a moral and ethical society. We are far from that in the United States. I believe Hare's
checklist is invalid as a measure of psychopathy in a ponerized society.

I too came to this conclusion regarding Hare's list, go2. Rather vague and as you stated, used all-too-frequently to portray rebelious-type folks as psychopaths. Are not the "best" pscychopaths excellent actors and consequently won't appear to fit within the framework of the list?

 

[sigh]

Sorry Anart I assumed you were familiar with at least the first page of Beelzebub's Tales...

Ahh, and now a reaction from 'sigh' - and more fishing for reactions - apologies 'sigh', but you are rather out of your depth here - and I'm being extremely generous with that statement. If anything you'd written thus far made any objective sense whatsoever - if it were even vaguely entertaining in an 'oh, look who's here to try to feed now' way, then it might be worth the forum's time - at this point since neither is the case, enough really is enough - deviant is one thing, but deviant AND boring? (not really worth much time, is it?)

Relatively speaking I may have been slightly more reactive than responsive by including the words "at least"... but it's not too late to retract them it it? I suppose further along the scale towards reaction I might have prefaced the "Try to..." paragraph with "Now be a good little moderator and try to..." Still it resulted in this current exchange and specifically another opportunity for inner struggle... and for this I thank you.

On the contrary... I think that my experimental study into the possibilities of a) Gurdjieff being born a psychopath... b) becoming aware of it... c) wondering if there was a path worthy of his striving... d) finding one... e) escaping from the first... f) traversing onto the second... and g) making it to the end... may deviate from other approaches but I wouldn't call it "deviant" in the negative connotation... and hardly boring.

Now, if you wish, try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. ... But you never stop yourself in what you are doing or in what you are saying because you believe in yourself. You must stop inwardly and observe. .. . And if you observe in this way, paying with yourself, without self-pity, giving up all your supposed riches for a moment of reality, perhaps you will suddenly see something you have never before seen in yourself until this day.

 

[domi]

Relatively speaking I may have been slightly more reactive than responsive by including the words "at least"... but it's not too late to retract them it it? I suppose further along the scale towards reaction I might have prefaced the "Try to..." paragraph with "Now be a good little moderator and try to..." Still it resulted in this current exchange and specifically another opportunity for inner struggle... and for this I thank you.

"opportunity for inner struggle" = feeding?

Such vague and empty words. Is that you Mr. Greenspan?

On the contrary... I think that my experimental study into the possibilities of a) Gurdjieff being born a psychopath... b) becoming aware of it... c) wondering if there was a path worthy of his striving... d) finding one... e) escaping from the first... f) traversing onto the second... and g) making it to the end... may deviate from other approaches but I wouldn't call it "deviant" in the negative connotation... and hardly boring.

Again we have sigh attaching great importance to his/her idea that Gurdjieff was a psychopath. More showing of self-importance by referring to "my experimental study". Sounds very scientific and serious.

Now, if you wish, try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. ... But you never stop yourself in what you are doing or in what you are saying because you believe in yourself. You must stop inwardly and observe. .. . And if you observe in this way, paying with yourself, without self-pity, giving up all your supposed riches for a moment of reality, perhaps you will suddenly see something you have never before seen in yourself until this day.

sigh should start his own website and forum where he/she can further promulgate his/her ideas and dispense "wisdom" to willing disciples who will of course provide "opportunities for inner struggle".

Adieu.

 

[Cyre2067]

I must admit, I thought the first few posts were spot on, so much so that I had nothing to add. I wondered what was up when I saw two more pages and boy was that a hoot to read through.... though the pepin thread is by far my most favorite.

 

[PepperFritz]

More showing of self-importance by referring to "my experimental study". Sounds very scientific and serious.

Mmmm. Aren't there methodologies and data involved in "studies"? And don't you eventually share that methodology and data, for the benefit of others? Yet when members of this Forum asked for such information, "sigh" claimed that the conclusions drawn from his "study" were merely a "statement of my understanding", the particulars of which he did not wish to share as they were "proper to myself alone". In fact, he seemed downright offended that anyone should even ask about the methodologies and data involved in his "study", and defensively attempted to shake off all questions with "Am I going to try and convince the members who posted their reactions above? No...."

Such crude and clumsy attempts at manipulation would be laughable... if they weren't so... very.... boring.... zzzzzzz..... ....

 

[cholas]

On the contrary... I think that my experimental study into the possibilities of a) Gurdjieff being born a psychopath... b) becoming aware of it... c) wondering if there was a path worthy of his striving... d) finding one... e) escaping from the first... f) traversing onto the second... and g) making it to the end... may deviate from other approaches but I wouldn't call it "deviant" in the negative connotation... and hardly boring.

This sounds like your theory sigh, correct? The main jist of what you are getting at? Imo, this could possibly be discussed in a reasonable manner, for a couple of posts anyway. The thread could actually be enlightening(not that it isn't somehow anyway). But look at all the other ME garbage that goes with it. Hard to wade through the shite. And it doesn't appear that you are open to learning anything. A one-way exchange.

Have you read any other threads yet concerning Gurdjieff?(or baked noodles?)

 

[biggreenpea]

I am late to this thread as I will be to many but once again I feel like thanking this forum for some very valuable information. As I read Beelzebub's... I wondered if Gurdjieff might be talking about something similar to a psychopath. I had just read Atlas Shrugged and felt as though Rand fit that description.

So, thanks again forum and johnno...

 

[cometboyat60]

In Barbara Marciniak's books, she speaks of Spirit dividing up into the black t-Shirts and the white t-shirts, and that our spiritual purpose here is to bring about an awkening and reconciliation between the fragmented aspects in the family of Spirit--in the language of the Christian hymn "Hark The Herald, Angels Sing"--"God and sinner, reconciled." Part of this healing involves releasing those parts of our self that no longer serve us. But another part means releasing any 'judgment' about those who seem unwilling or unable to do this. In this case 'judgment' entails the conceit 'I' am able to discern what is or in not under the volition of the actor. This does not mean we open our self to any and all influences, internal and external. We do have foes. We do need to acknowledg the need to wrestle with forces of mindless destruction. But when we turn foes into 'enemies'--when struggle degenerates into enmity, we become the enemy. So I'd say be careful with how you define 'psychopath' and how it might undermine our positive intent.

 

[Jacques]

Hi cometboyat60,

Welcome to our forum. :)

We recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, how they found the cass material, and how much of the work here they have read.

You can have a look through that board to see how others have done it.

 

[Jakesully]

Just for the sake of clarification, I think a word study of the term "psychopath" might be useful and enlightening. And yes I'm aware that the bulk of this thread happened back in 2008.

Psychopathy means "mental illness". That being the case, any condition that causes us to pathologically think incorrectly or illogically could be termed as a psychopathic condition. Psychopath is a general label.

Now this idea of the "Hasnamuss" or shite soul I think specifically refers to characteropaths, sociopaths, and/or extreme narcissists.

Thirdly, if you consider the definition of the term "schizophrenia", which in extreme cases is marked by auditory or visual hallucinations, but in more subtle cases, can manifest as mere delusional fantasies, that, due to some trauma or chemical imbalance, results in these delusional fantasies being sincerely held as true, then it would be fair to say that everyone is at least a little schizophrenic. Everyone has the predator's mind. And as schizophrenia falls within the spectrum of disorders that can be termed psychopathy, it may also be fair to say, although with caution due to the emotional content the word carries in our culture, that everyone has a bit of psychopathy.

However, here the distinction must be made between curable and uncurable psychopathy. Essential psychopaths are in fact missing part of their brain, the part that allows them to process emotions. They are probably also missing an actual individualized soul.

... but meanwhile know that this word designates the already defined common presence of any three-brained being—whether consisting of the planetary body alone or already coated with higher being-bodies—in whom for some reason or other data have not been crystallized for the divine impulse of Objective Conscience."

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Just for the sake of clarification, I think a word study of the term "psychopath" might be useful and enlightening. And yes I'm aware that the bulk of this thread happened back in 2008.

Psychopathy means "mental illness". That being the case, any condition that causes us to pathologically think incorrectly or illogically could be termed as a psychopathic condition. Psychopath is a general label.

It is not at all a general label except for maybe in a extremely casual conversations like when someone says, "Did you see what that guy did? man! What a psycho!"

With mental health professionals, psychopathy is not a general label. This condition is highly misunderstood (probably not by accident), but when people talk about it other than casually there is a specific meaning to it.

It is also not a general label when you used on this forum. It refers to a rather specific condition though that condition has many manifestations ranging from the type of psychopath incarcerated for a violent crime to the white collar type gleefully profiting from sub-prime mortgage scams.

Thirdly, if you consider the definition of the term "schizophrenia", which in extreme cases is marked by auditory or visual hallucinations, but in more subtle cases, can manifest as mere delusional fantasies, that, due to some trauma or chemical imbalance, results in these delusional fantasies being sincerely held as true, then it would be fair to say that everyone is at least a little schizophrenic. Everyone has the predator's mind. And as schizophrenia falls within the spectrum of disorders that can be termed psychopathy, it may also be fair to say, although with caution due to the emotional content the word carries in our culture, that everyone has a bit of psychopathy.

As far as I know, it is entirely inaccurate to associate schizophrenia and psychopathy. Schizophrenics are often profoundly uncomfortable in their everyday lives as compared to the glib ease with which psychopaths manipulate those around them. And that is just one point I toss off the top of my head...

Psychopathy is very difficult to understand. Maybe it can't be understood in an empathic sense. We can observe however its features, its manifestations, etc.

Have you read any of the works on psychopathy? "Mask of Sanity" and "Political Ponerology" would be good places to start. Also these SOTT articles:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/224670-Political-Ponerology-A-Science-on-The-Nature-of-Evil-adjusted-for-Political-Purposes

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/214764-Ponerology-101-Psychopathy-at-Nuremburg

And also any of the other ponerology 101 articles on SOTT... I can not suggest strongly enough reading these works.