The horrific situation / the place of "pleasure"

[anart]

Re: The horrific situation

(T) They're manipulating
it to make negative. But, they can never make more than there
is, more negative than positive, because the universe is
constantly seeking balance. So, every place they make a
negative, there's some place else that becomes a positive.
You can never make more. You can try. A: True.

If this is the case, there must be an enormous conglomeration of positive energy building up of unimaginable proportions! I'd be interested to know how this is being manifested currently or if it's being held in reserve to wash over the earth all at once or something else altogether? Thoughts?

Probably in the everyday lives of decent human beings, performing quiet acts of selflessness within their own families and communities, people and activities unlikely to make the STS-controlled evening news, but nonetheless contributing to the STO frequency of the planet. And groups like this one, working diligently and persistently to provide information and Knowledge to others, and to anchor their own signal/conduits in anticipation of the Wave....

The important factor to remember here is that they are speaking of Universal balance, not 'Earth balance' per se. In other words, the Universe is in balance, so there is an equal amount of positive or negative in 'all there is', but that does not mean that the Earth, especially in this 'place and time' is in balance. The C's did indicate in another session, however, that it was moving toward balance - just not sure exactly what that means or how it will manifest.

 

[Psalehesost]

Re: The horrific situation

Re (more specifically as regards the first bit) PepperFritz: I did/do not think such of every pleasure without a specific "purpose". However, there is seeking pleasure because one wants pleasure (and "want" is inherently an STS concept according to the C's - part of the STS mode of operation. however, as they point out, we are fundamentally STS and cannot be otherwise at present - however, needless "wanting" and "desiring" and seeking pleasure in itself thereby is at any rate STS without being of some use, unlike the fulfilling of such wants as wanting to learn. as such it - to my understanding - will simply dampen one's FRV needlessly), and "pleasure" and enjoyment that occurs without one specifically seeking it. For example, when a flow of higher emotions (in my case, temporarily and very rarely) occurs, or in that state (no idea of proper description - "higher intellectual emotion"?) wherein, so to say, a "bright, cold light" (combined with a state of rather complete non-attachment) is "felt" penetrating the mind and within. Those are decidedly "nice" without resulting from the seeking of pleasure - and when present, obsoletes the seeking of pleasure, as "coarser" chemical feel-good states are then perceived without attachment as no more than an inner fog that obscures the view, in my very limited experience. Suddenly the subjective illusion of "meaning" in such "pleasure" fades, and it is no longer "pleasurable" (rather neutral) as one no longer identifies with it.

Not identifying in this way seems to me possible even without such "higher" (assuming of course that I am not venturing "left field" above - if so, please tell) states: For example, if you eat food and register and observe all the impressions that result, that is one thing - but there is a difference between experiencing this without attachment and being identified with it, which is what I think that "seeking" to enjoy it amounts to.

OSIT.


The point is that to me, the seeking of pleasure seems an attempt to fill the "void" of something real and objective (higher emotional and/or otherwise mental state - to which I think growing in knowledge and creativity is distinctly related) with happy chemicals.

But, once again, I may be missing some distinction?

 

[PepperFritz]

...needless "wanting" and "desiring" and seeking pleasure in itself thereby is at any rate STS without being of some use, unlike the fulfilling of such wants as wanting to learn. as such it - to my understanding - will simply dampen one's FRV needlessly)....

That is not my understanding of the Cassiopaea material, either in letter or in spirit. Again, context is all. Obviously, there is pleasure-seeking that is detrimental to one's spiritual health and growth. However, it is one's purpose/intent in seeking out that pleasure (one's actual purpose, not one's stated purpose) that determines its detrimental quality, not the pleasure itself. Any behaviour (whether pleasure-seeking or suffering) that is mechanical in nature is detrimental, as it is not conscious and therefore can never be purposeful (which is not synonymous with "useful"). The aim of the Work is to replace mechanical behaviour with conscious willful action. It is a given that a pleasure (or suffering) that one must partake in and cannot "give up" involves detrimental attachment and identification; it is also a given that some pleasures lend themselves to such attachment more than others. However, the fact that a mechanical man is attached to and mechanically pursues a given pleasure does not mean that a more awake and aware man cannot consciously seek out and experience the same pleasure, not only without detrimental effect but in a way that is wholly consistent with the Work and his aim to become an STO candidate. Once again, the devil is in the details.

I have read nothing in the Cassiopaea material (or Gurdjieff's 4th Way teaching) that would support your idea that any seeking out of pleasure that does not involve a conscious motive towards "usefuless" will "dampen one's FRV". In your earlier post you suggested that the deliberate seeking out and deriving of pleasure from the beauty and grandeur of nature -- not for its "usefulness", but for the pure pleasurable sake of it -- as something that should "ideally...be eliminated". You similarly characterized seeking out the pleasure of music, dancing, hugging, and enjoying a meal prepared by loving hands. In that respect, I think that your reading and interpretation of the material is skewed. I would even suggest that such an interpretation, if put into practice, could be detrimental in nature and antithetical to the Work and the spirit of STO.

The point is that to me, the seeking of pleasure seems an attempt to fill the "void" of something real and objective....

It certain can be, and frequently is. However, that does not mean that is the nature of ALL pleasure-seeking. The difference lies in the individual seeking the pleasure, his purpose/intent in seeking that pleasure, and whether or not it is done mechanically or consciously. Once again, context is all and the devil is in the details.

This post reflects my current understanding, which could change with the input of further data.

Gotta go now. I'm off to the Lawson trail, where I intend to enjoy the pleasurable beauty of this lovely summer day and the company of my dogs. And at some point along the way I suspect that I will probably very deliberately hug and kiss those pooches -- just for the pleasure of it and without regard to its potential "usefulness".... ;)



(Edited and expanded at 2:27pm, for clarity)

 

[Psalehesost]

Re: The horrific situation

That is simply not my understanding of the Cassiopaea material, either in letter or in spirit. Again, context is all. Obviously, there is pleasure-seeking that is detrimental to one's spiritual health and growth. However, it is one's purpose in seeking out that pleasure (one's actual purpose, not one's stated purpose) that determines its detrimental quality, not the pleasure itself.

I have read nothing in the Cassiopaea material (or Gurdjieff's 4th Way teaching) that would support your idea that any seeking out of pleasure that does not involve a conscious motive towards "usefuless" will "dampen one's FRV". In your earlier post you suggested that the deliberate seeking out and deriving of pleasure from the beauty and grandeur of nature -- not for its "usefulness", but for the pure pleasurable sake of it -- as something that should "ideally...be eliminated". You similarly characterized seeking out the pleasure of music, dancing, hugging one's animal companion, and enjoying a meal prepared by loving hands. In that respect, I think that your reading and interpretation of the material is skewed. I would even suggest that such an interpretation, if put into practice, could be detrimental in nature.

Gotta go now. I'm off to the Lawson trail, where I intend to enjoy the pleasurable beauty of this lovely summer day and the company of my dogs. At some point along the way I suspect that I will probably very deliberately -- and with no regard to its usefuless -- shamelessly and self-indulgently hug hug those poochies. ;)

The simplistic idea I got was that:
Action from (and in itself the presence of) STS mentality -> "worsen" FRV
Action from (and in itself the presence of) STO mentality -> "improve" FRV
And that as far as those two go, that there is no issue of context, since STS is STS and STO is STO, context typically appearing in determining what is which.

Further on, there is the idea that all pleasure-seeking by its nature is STS, since seeking pleasure is inherently (to my understanding) about serving self (thus far eliminating the issue of context from this particular question) - by wanting pleasure for oneself (C's: "If it is desired, then the mechanism is not to give."). I did not think that one's idea of its utility had any bearing on impact on FRV - only that such impact, which I thought would in any case occur, would be "useless" if there was no point to the activity.

That said, it was/is obvious that there is a huge variance in degree of detriment (which I did not think to mention, as the level of extent given some was not relevant to the question of whether or not all pleasure-seeking is detrimental to some extent, ie. extent > 0).

And then there is "want", which is what drives pleasure-seeking (as opposed to simply experiencing something pleasurable without desire being present):

A: Want is an STS concept.
Q: So, you seem to be suggesting that the real trick is to just
become non-attached to anything and anybody, do nothing,
and just dissolve into nothing? No thought, no want, no do, no
be, no anything!
A: If you are STS, that does not fit, but, if you did exactly that,
you would reincarnate in an STO realm, where such energy
does fit.
Q: But, if you have become nothing, how do you reincarnate?
And, when you say 'reincarnate,' that implies being in a body!
A: You do not become nothingness.
Q: But, being incarnated means being in a body?
A: No.
Q: You mean moving into a realm that does not necessarily
mean being in a body?
A: Close. But 4th density is partially physical. Does not
consume nor possess.

This, as is pointed out later in the same session, is contrary to way of "getting there" (to 4D) that this network strives for. My point here, however, lies in this idea: if complete lack of want becomes lack of STS-mentality, then I'd think that reducing want - removing all want not essential to the Quest (which I think would include the wants involved in the seeking of those pleasures) as said Quest is done by this network (assuming that this idea in itself is not completely at odds) - would at least reduce the level of STS-mentality, and so boost FRV.


If there is something skewed in my thinking here, then I think it goes deeper than interpretation and thinking around the material - right into the foundation of my world view. If that is the case, mirroring would be appreciated.

I will omit the self-deprecating internal considering which some "I" wants to include at the end here.

 

[JEEP]

Probably in the everyday lives of decent human beings, performing quiet acts of selflessness within their own families and communities, people and activities unlikely to make the STS-controlled evening news, but nonetheless contributing to the STO frequency of the planet. And groups like this one, working diligently and persistently to provide information and Knowledge to others, and to anchor their own signal/conduits in anticipation of the Wave....

The important factor to remember here is that they are speaking of Universal balance, not 'Earth balance' per se. In other words, the Universe is in balance, so there is an equal amount of positive or negative in 'all there is', but that does not mean that the Earth, especially in this 'place and time' is in balance. The C's did indicate in another session, however, that it was moving toward balance - just not sure exactly what that means or how it will manifest.

In regards to Anart's reply, that is what I thought was correct, that the Lizzies have created an unnatural and incredibly disproportionate negative balance and that the Universe is self-correcting. Upon reading the cited excerpt, "So, every place they make a negative, there's some place else that becomes a positive. You can never make more.", I thought perhaps that positive aspect would be a more earth-bound manifestation. And as Pepperfritz indicated, "Probably in the everyday lives of decent human beings, performing quiet acts of selflessness within their own families and communities, people and activities...", I also thought that this must be the counterbalance, although these actions are scattered all over the earth and if taken together, would they add up to equal to what the Lizzies have wrought--probably not. So the question was where/how is the rest of this balance manifesting?

The important factor to remember here is that they are speaking of Universal balance [...] just not sure exactly what that means or how it will manifest.

...or if it's being held in reserve to wash over the earth all at once...

Is the WAVE itself the balancing positive energy of the Universe on course to correct this 4D STS inflicted imbalance? It would seem so, but the point is not to nail down the specific way it is going to happen, but to know it is going to happen! It seems incredible to me that for all the superior intellect of the Lizzies over us poor, hapless 3D human beings, that they somehow think they can escape this basic tenet of the Universe. As it has been pointed out, it is their fatal flaw. Sad for them--I think I'll cry some crocodile tears!

Thank you Anart and Pepperfritz for your insightful replies. Your dedication and perseverance in keeping us on track is so appreciated!

 

[anart]

Re: The horrific situation

This, as is pointed out later in the same session, is contrary to way of "getting there" (to 4D) that this network strives for. My point here, however, lies in this idea: if complete lack of want becomes lack of STS-mentality, then I'd think that reducing want - removing all want not essential to the Quest (which I think would include the wants involved in the seeking of those pleasures) as said Quest is done by this network (assuming that this idea in itself is not completely at odds) - would at least reduce the level of STS-mentality, and so boost FRV.


If there is something skewed in my thinking here, then I think it goes deeper than interpretation and thinking around the material - right into the foundation of my world view. If that is the case, mirroring would be appreciated.

I think I understand what you're getting at Csayeursost - the point is that want/desire is STS, which you are directly linking to pleasure for the self, which is STS - and we, as human beings existing on 3D planet earth in 2009 are STS. Perhaps the distinction you are missing is that Pepperfritz is discussing appreciation as opposed to desire? (If that is what she intends - if she intends the pursuit of pleasure just to feel good or better, then that idea might fall flat.)

I also think it's important to remember that imposing a lack of desire/want upon oneself is counterproductive - it should be a natural byproduct of development - not something imposed because you think it might quicken development. I think that deep appreciation of beauty, wherever one finds it, is more akin to Love than pleasure seeking or desire - it is more of an acknowledgment of the Creative face of the Universe - and being able to perceive that face, and appreciate it, is part of awakening and balance - but that's just my take on it.

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=Csayeursost]
My point here, however, lies in this idea: if complete lack of want becomes lack of STS-mentality, then I'd think that reducing want - removing all want not essential to the Quest (which I think would include the wants involved in the seeking of those pleasures) as said Quest is done by this network (assuming that this idea in itself is not completely at odds) - would at least reduce the level of STS-mentality, and so boost FRV.[/quote]

I think I understand the point you're trying to make. I'd like to respond, although I understand I may completely bungle this.

Complete lack of want in 3rd Density would be a contradictory state since there would be a want in back of all that if one were actively pursuing that as a goal. It seems like the only possibility of that state occuring in 3D would be if one somehow stumbled into it so that one found oneself in a state of complete lack of want without having wanted it.

So the issue is then one of 'reducing want' as you stated. That is my understanding of 'impeccability'. A state of maximum efficiency, with no distractions and maximum helping through the STO dynamic. I believe that to be a worthy goal, but a goal that doesn't require a deliberate focus on reducing wants because that happens as a consequence of investing more and more energy into identifying and eliminating falseness and acquiring more and better results from the Work one has chosen to do for others.

I guess the next statement would depend on my understanding of what you mean by 'STS mentality'. Is there an inverse relationship between the 'level of STS-mentality' and FRV? I suppose it's possible, but if there is, I may be seeing it operating a little differently.
In other words, in the scenario I'm envisioning, following that logic, one could potentially reduce the level of STS-mentality to the point of sitting and doing nothing until one dies of starvation, but how would the FRV of a person who did that, compare with the FRV of a person who risked their life to gather, assimilate, connect and disseminate life-giving information on a day-to-day basis, using a cognitive feedback loop to measure, quantify results and change, learn and grow from the experience moment-by-moment?

I think that as long as we occupy bodies whose biological design incorporates emotions, and the emotions of objective joy and excitement (as results) has so many beneficial effects on our state of being, then the focus of effort should probably be on transmuting negative emotions to obtain the goal of connection with our higher centers, and not being concerned with possible negative effects of pleasure/joy associated with positive results of pursuing an aim.

If I've incorrectly understood something, someone please let me know.

 

[PepperFritz]

Perhaps the distinction you are missing is that Pepperfritz is discussing appreciation as opposed to desire? (If that is what she intends - if she intends the pursuit of pleasure just to feel good or better, then that idea might fall flat.)

Yes, that is what I intend. Again, the devil is in the details.

This discussion began with me setting out a list of "pleasurable" activities that we could all endeavour to consciously pursue at least once a day, in order to counteract the overwhelming sense of depression that the "horror of the situation" can lead to -- i.e. I intended them to be activities that could "lift the spirit" and provide some balance in one's perspective of objective reality. Now, any of those listed activities could be pursued in entirely different ways, and it would be the intent, motivation, and manner of pursuing that pleasure that would tell the tale: It could be pursued as a purely mechanical self-pleasuring activity that considers no one but the self and its own desires; or, it could be pursued as a pleasurable "shared" experience that appreciates, honours, and respects the "other" as much as the "self".

Take the suggestion that one seek out and enjoy the beauty of nature: An extremely STS mechanical man could interpret that as spending millions of dollars to create his own ornately landscaped outdoor environment for his own personal pleasure, in which he bends and twists nature to fit his own wants and desires, and excludes anyone else from enjoying it with him. To a hunter, that may mean getting to enjoy the sights and sounds of nature while he kills its inhabitants purely for the pleasurable "sport" of it.

On the other hand, to a conscious and aware individual who hopes to one day become an STO-candidate, seeking out and enjoying the pleasurable beauty of nature could simply mean enjoying nature in its natural state, in order to achieve a sense of refreshment and renewal, exercising the highest respect for the environment by leaving a "light footprint" behind; the pleasure of appreciating this natural beauty would not involve violation and is in a sense shared with nature itself and leads to a joyful sense of transcendence.

Is there "want" and "desire" involved in the latter example? Yes, of course, since as third-density humans we are not able to eliminate those STS characteristics from our nature, nor from our motivations and intents. But is that a reason to "reduce" or "eliminate" such deliberately sought-out pleasure/appreciation, as suggested by Csayeursost? Or is the pleasure sought and derived from the activity in some way detrimental to the Work or one's aim of becoming an STO-candidate, or somehow in danger of decreasing one's FVR? Not based on my current understanding of the Cass material.

I think this may be an example of where a word -- i.e. "pleasure" -- has become coopted by our STS society and therefore calls up only certain limited connotations when someone hears it. One has only to read the Cass transcripts to be convinced that "pleasure" is not a frowned-upon concept in 6th density....

 

[anart]

One has only to read the Cass transcripts to be convinced that "pleasure" is not a frowned-upon concept in 6th density....

Unless it is pleasure for the self - that is an important distinction that you seem to be glossing over a bit. The introduction of 'pleasure for the self' - as in 'only for the self/self-gratification' was one of the key components of 'the fall' ... so it might be worthwhile to consider that aspect and its ramifications/manifestations (which I think is the direction Csayeursost was heading and why the two of you might not be understanding each other very well). fwiw.

 

[PepperFritz]

Unless it is pleasure for the self - that is an important distinction that you seem to be glossing over a bit. The introduction of 'pleasure for the self' - as in 'only for the self' was one of the key components of 'the fall' ... so it might be worthwhile to consider that aspect and its ramifications/manifestations.

No, I'm not "glossing over" the distinction at all. It was my intent to highlight the distinction. My point is that when considering the word "pleasure", a distinction must be made. It should not automatically be translated as meaning "pleasure for the self". The devil is in the details.

 

[go2]

Hi Pepperfritz,

Perhaps "seeking pleasure" is a different concept than "experiencing pleasure". We experience pleasure walking the dog on a beautiful day. If we walk the dog, seeking to experience pleasure, we have a motive beneath the simple walking the dog. The pleasure we seek is never the frequency of pleasure experienced as the result of a simple act. Is this what Gurdjieff meant when he said, "We cannot do!". I cannot walk the dog, I am walking the dog to experience pleasure. I am not walking the dog, I am seeking pleasure by walking the dog. This is pure STS.

This thread clarified the nature of "acting with a single mind" for me. By the way PF, thanks for your sustained efforts to maintain a common language on the forum. It has helped me discover how little I know and my difficulty hearing what is being said.

 

[anart]

No, I'm not "glossing over" the distinction at all. It was my intent to highlight the distinction. My point is that when considering the word "pleasure", a distinction must be made. It should not automatically be translated as meaning "pleasure for the self". The devil is in the details.

Actually, I think you missed my point - and the devil in the details. You have not really clarified the difference between pleasure and 'pleasure for the self' in your posts thus far. Could you, perhaps, try to clarify that as it applies to your particular situation?

 

[anart]

In other words, in the scenario I'm envisioning, following that logic, one could potentially reduce the level of STS-mentality to the point of sitting and doing nothing until one dies of starvation, but how would the FRV of a person who did that, compare with the FRV of a person who risked their life to gather, assimilate, connect and disseminate life-giving information on a day-to-day basis, using a cognitive feedback loop to measure, quantify results and change, learn and grow from the experience moment-by-moment?

Just for the sake of discussion, here is a snippet of the session on August 28th, 1999

Q: Why? What makes STO unavailable or 'inedible?'
A: Frequency resonance not in sync.
Q: (A) But then, that would mean that all these people who
are saying that we need just to love everything and
everybody, are right. They just be, and love, don't do
anything, just give everything to the Lizzies... they are right!
A: No, because motivation is STS.
Q: How is the motivation to love everything and everybody,
and to just give, STS?
A: Feels good.
Q: So, they want to do it because it feels good?
A: Want is an STS concept.
Q: So, you seem to be suggesting that the real trick is to just
become non-attached to anything and anybody, do nothing,
and just dissolve into nothing? No thought, no want, no do,
no be, no anything!
A: If you are STS, that does not fit, but, if you did exactly
that, you would reincarnate in an STO realm, where such
energy does fit.

 

[John G]

Q: So, you seem to be suggesting that the real trick is to just
become non-attached to anything and anybody, do nothing,
and just dissolve into nothing? No thought, no want, no do,
no be, no anything!
A: If you are STS, that does not fit, but, if you did exactly
that, you would reincarnate in an STO realm, where such
energy does fit.

The transcripts also say 6th density is always fun and there's nothing like a 4th density STO laugh so there does seem to be a difference between becoming STO in an STS realm and being STO in an STO realm. For all practical purposes having fun here has no choice but to be STS in some sense but having some fun here is also quite necessary to staying sane and alive here. It maybe comes down to that do what is in you to do thing and some fun being "better" than others.

 

[Erna]

I think the nature of that which one derives pleasure from is also an important distinction that needs to be considered here with regard to STS/STO polarity, apart from placing the concept of pleasure (in and of itself / in isolation) under the microscope and whether seeking, wanting or experiencing it is either STS or STO.

For me personally, the intent / driving force behind the pleasure is pertinent to polarization, since I doubt we can't escape the need for it in physical form with our 5 senses. (need and want being STS / we being STS)

Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates the momentum towards the chosen path of service to self?

Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.

All these experiences are available. It is the free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure.

This is how I understood Pepperfritz’s message thus far, and if that is what she meant, then I am in agreement with my current level of understanding.