The Predator - a dark truth right under your own nose, literally

[luke wilson]

In a strange way, I can relate to the views alkhemist/decker/archea have reacted against and those expressed as the consensus.

First of all, I think subjectively alkhemist is very sensitive (i.e. can split quite easily) and above all needs some sort of emotional sort of re-assurance where he feels that his point of view has been seen and acknowledged by other people. This will stop an abrupt split where he will swing from one end to the other. He will access whether it has been seen and acknowledged by the way others reply to him. If they come across as abrupt and diametrically opposed to where his view is at, then he will take it as confrontational, especially if the language is dry, direct and sharp. I don't think the forum is equipped to deal with a person in such a personalised way especially if the person in question is in such a place as to be demanding and expect others to commit first before them.

Archaea on the other hand is threatened by what appears as a somewhat over-riding consensus. To some people, this may appear as those expressing the consensus view have surrendered their individual capacity to think for themselves. This becomes even more threatening where one's view somehow differs from that of the consensus and there is a sort of divide where one is unable to reconcile or think their way through so that they can agree with the overriding views. At the bottom line though, I think sometimes its worth noting that some people on the fringes and those within the confines of the consensus are essentially the same, i.e. they want the same thing. That to me is why you see some people on the fringe totally disagree with certain aspects but still say this place has value for them. To me it appears that this problem has arisen because the person in question is in a place where they can't yet reconcile what they think against that which they think is in opposition, however, at a deeper level, they stick around because of an innate feeling of sameness regarding the over-riding almost ephemeral goals.

Obviously, into this mix you should also add those who are injected into this environment to run interference as it were, jumble up the signal.

So, from the consensus end, it's hard to know what is what i.e. cherry pick between various individuals to figure out who is who, especially if you run across people who are unwilling to change as they can't yet see why or how they should change.

It's a tough one, because in a way, all of us here got here because we didn't accept the consensus view of the mainstream, so there is that rebelliousness, then obviously you come here and you are encountered by another form of consensus which is natural as people in a group will automatically form some form of consensus. If engaged in the wrong way, the same mechanisms that were in play in rebelling against the mainstream will be turned against the forum. They will then start looking for evidence regarding 'sheep like' mentality. Confirmation bias then comes into play regarding treatment of people like decker. The brain will pick and discard information that will then shape their mental outlook.

Personally, whenever my personal view disagrees with the consensus view and I can't see how/why, I try and always remember that in the end we want the same thing and through years of interaction, I've grown to know that there is no personal vendetta against me personally, well at least since anart left. This way, I can hold 2 positions simultaneously, where I can feel the discomfort created by opposing views but I can also feel affinity by shared ultimate goals. In the interim, as time passes, I can gain more knowledge on my part that will help me get closer to the consensus or believe it or not, the consensus will move towards mine. For me mostly it's because beyond concrete knowledge, I also function based on impressions and before the knowledge came into play, I was always guided by the impressions I had which I then end up putting a lot of trust into. Vaguely speaking, most of it has proved useful but then there are others which don't, especially if personal STS feelings of gain/desire/want are involved because then I can't tell apart egocentric wants from the impressions which to be honest are just pieces of empty air with flavours.

Things are always changing, it's not static so I think it's a shame when people lose sight of the ultimate goal and let mundane things result in storms in teacups where things are said and done that can't really be taken back.

Shame indeed but that is the nature of the conflict between light and dark that inevitably, some collateral damage shall be had.

Archae, to you I say just hang in there and don't lose sight of what really matters, what you really want, why you are really here, why you haven't gone total ape sh*t crazy regarding throwing all sorts of abuse and accusations.

The above is purely subjective based on my own subjective observations. I haven't even read alkhemist's posts beyond this thread so could be totally wrong. I am basing my views on archea based on what I have read on this thread and the Cs session thread where he posted regarding this topic a couple of weeks ago.

 

[SummerLite]

I've been following this thread and all responses have been quite thought provoking which leads to my own self analysis. The last post by Luke Wilson touches on some issues I find within myself as to being to sensitive to criticism which certainly has plagued me most of my life and how that plays out in my being. Because of my sensitivity (which has its good points too) I can read others responses here to be quite harsh as well, unkind. I know I am very new here however and lack understanding so will hang in there since the basis is in line with my primary principles. Also being the "rebellious" sort and reacting to "group mind" comes up. I was in another forum at one time and this came up for me in such a strong way when I no longer shared that group perspective, I was the odd one out and so left.

I do see this sensitivity and the need to fight back, defend oneself as a direct consequence of the predators mind and how our society keeps people in line. The individual is assaulted at the very beginning of life which continues onward and results in a hair trigger response to defend oneself. Around this defense all matter of emotions are felt, abandonment, lack of self worth, anger. One can be pulled into quite the tumultuous, emotional soup. I have worked on this most of my life since it creates much pain.

In one of those synchronistic episodes questions about a former member Anart has come up for me and Luke remarks on this person. In the last few days I have been reading old threads and find this persons replies to be very harsh, angry, intolerant, but of course, am I reading emotion where none exists? A long standing member I'd say with the amount of posts, 16,000 or something but didn't realize until now they aren't a member still. This observation was tied into what is being discussed in this thread for me which I said I've been following. Is there a back round story on this person that would be of value to share?

 

[Leelee]

Thank you , Luke Wilson. What you wrote has articulately condensed so many thoughts that were ruminating in my head. I am still a little nervous to post (as you can tell), but after reading that, I had to. I, too, can relate to some of the things decker/alchemist/archaea brought up. There have been times when I’ve read something posted here and thought, “wow , that’s harsh, that’s ganging up, I’m outta here”. But, inevitably, I am back again because I stop to think, “was something said there that touched a hook within me to cause that reaction.”? Sometimes I can find it. When I do, it is usually yet another one of my sacred cows reluctantly going to slaughter. And even when I can’t relate, I am still back here again because it has been the only place I have found honesty in the search for truth. Coddling was never something that prompted change in me, no matter how much I may have thought I once appreciated it. (and I’m not saying anyone here was looking for that, only speaking for myself) Having at one time been immersed in the new age light and love brigade, I had a huge helping of that. And all of that sweet talk only put me deeper to sleep. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t always be respectful, but when you are buried in illusions, the truth can seem like a burning iron and those delivering it, attackers. I think that sometimes we can perceive we are being attacked or ganged up on, when in reality, someone has said something that speaks to yet another illusion with which we are reluctant to part. I know this has been true for me.

I can’t remember who, but one of the members here has a quote on their profile which says "Real compassion kicks butt and takes names, and it is not pleasant on certain days. If you are not ready for this fire, then find a new-age, sweetness-and-light, soft-speaking, perpetually smiling teacher, and learn to relabel your ego with spiritual sounding terms. But stay away from those that practice real compassion, because they will fry your ass, my friend." I do think, for the most part, compassion is practiced here even when it stings, perhaps especially when our butts are fried. My butt has been being fried ever since I came upon the C’s material many years ago. I can’t imagine anything more compassionate than devoting one’s life to bringing truth to people, with no great earthly reward, dodging many arrows along the way. And I think that energy of finding the truth no matter what, governs this forum. So what can at times seem like “ganging up”, may just be compassion in action to keep us awake. Lullabies will only put us deeper to sleep. So, on certain days, this will not be pleasant for some of us. But the mess we are in here, is NOT pleasant. And I may still run off and exclaim “I’m outta here” again, but I know I will be back. Weary as I sometimes get, sleep is just not an option.

 

[luke wilson]

I've been following this thread and all responses have been quite thought provoking which leads to my own self analysis. The last post by Luke Wilson touches on some issues I find within myself as to being to sensitive to criticism which certainly has plagued me most of my life and how that plays out in my being.

Since we are speaking from personal experience, for me, unless it's something I have done that is downright wrong, like morally speaking, I would have to say that mostly responses that I perceive as being a criticism appear to be so only because they differ to mine. That is, sometimes what we perceive to be a criticism is not actually a criticism, it only appears to be so because the view expressed is opposed to our view.

To say another way, we add an emotional element to the response received. Some people who are quite sensitive or have had lives and experiences where differences in opinions with others lead to conflicts where lots of negative emotional energy was experienced, some of which may even have been imprinted into the survival non-thinking part of the brain, then these people can split and get triggered quite easily. Once that primitive i.e. survival action based part of the brain is engaged and is functioning based on past experiences, then it's highly unlikely that the path the person is on, when engaged in conflict with others, will change i.e. the result becomes almost inevitable.

That is not to say that there are situations where we don't receive criticisms.

It comes down to a lot of self study and self honesty I think and also I think an element of trust. As humans we can't know everything ourselves, at some point you have to give to trust. Trust that you are dealing with people who aren't out to get you. It's a tough one when we are surrounded with so many pathologicals that we have to deal with on a day to day basis.

Because of my sensitivity (which has its good points too) I can read others responses here to be quite harsh as well, unkind.

As people have different communication styles, I think it varies from person to person how another person will react to what they say.

For example, if a certain person in my life was the bane of my existence e.g. a boss, a teacher, a parent etc, if I meet someone else who has the same pattern of communication as that person, then even if I don't want to, those parts of my brain that became activated when dealing with the original person will light up and when engaged in a conflict situation with this new person, the same old patterns will replay.

Also I think certain ways of communicating have higher probabilities of engaging certain areas of the brains in the person on the receiving end. If parts of the brain are engaged that shut off those areas capable of receiving the message, then again, a conflict situation arises.

It's all pretty much shots in the dark... How for example was no-mans-land to know that alkhemist will completely go off the deep end from his pattern of response? At what point does his responsibility begin and end compared to alkhemist's?

As I said, collateral damage is inevitable in certain situations. At least it looks that way to me.

 

[kalibex]

Archaea ...[...]... is threatened by what appears as a somewhat over-riding consensus. To some people, this may appear as those expressing the consensus view have surrendered their individual capacity to think for themselves.

Considering that this is possibly the very beginning of what someday may become a social memory complex...it does tend to give one pause in an 'Am I really similar enough to these folks?' way when one is still getting to know this group. It would, I think, be important to give oneself a reasonable length of time before jumping to conclusions about what such a 'consensus' means...

 

[Joe]

What I find hard to understand about the "group think" claim that has been levelled at us from time to time is that it seems to refute the possibility that a group of people can study information and individually draw the same conclusion that the information is accurate.

When that consensus conclusion is voiced by several such people, and is then contested by someone who has not studied that information, or has studied it and drawn different conclusions about its accuracy, those contesting it claim "group think".

It's a claim that seems based in a person accusing others of what they themselves are doing: demanding that their view point be upheld. It's pretty disingenuous too, because behind it usually lies the simple fact that a person does not agree with the point of view of a group of people. But rather than admit that and carry on their merry way, they launch an oblique and manipulative attack on the group by claiming "group think", stating, effectively, that the group are deluded and can't have drawn the same conclusion from the judicious study of information.

Such people also tend to make this group think claim under the cover of claiming that they're just honest people who are concerned for the welfare of the group.

 

[Mark]

What I find hard to understand about the "group think" claim that has been levelled at us from time to time is that it seems to refute the possibility that a group of people can study information and individually draw the same conclusion that the information is accurate.

When that consensus conclusion is voiced by several such people, and is then contested by someone who has not studied that information, or has studied it and drawn different conclusions about its accuracy, those contesting it claim "group think".

It's a claim that seems based in a person accusing others of what they themselves are doing: demanding that their view point be upheld. It's pretty disingenuous too, because behind it usually lies the simple fact that a person does not agree with the point of view of a group of people. But rather than admit that and carry on their merry way, they launch an oblique and manipulative attack on the group by claiming "group think", stating, effectively, that the group are deluded and can't have drawn the same conclusion from the judicious study of information.

Such people also tend to make this group think claim under the cover of claiming that they're just honest people who are concerned for the welfare of the group.

A similar analysis went through my mind today, it's the logical conclusion based on the data.

 

[Alada]

I do see this sensitivity and the need to fight back, defend oneself as a direct consequence of the predators mind and how our society keeps people in line. The individual is assaulted at the very beginning of life which continues onward and results in a hair trigger response to defend oneself. Around this defense all matter of emotions are felt, abandonment, lack of self worth, anger. One can be pulled into quite the tumultuous, emotional soup.

Exactly.

One way to counter the knee jerk reactions of the predator when they come up in us is to remember this: No one here should accept without question, anything that he or she has not first verified for themselves.

If there is something that we don't understand, can't quite get our head around, then leave it be until enough data is collected one way or the other. There is no YOU MUST BELIEVE THIS OR BE DAMNED required or wanted here. That kind of thinking helps nobody, and infact, those that do swallow things wholesale in such a way without first verifying them, don't do themselves or the forum any favours.

It's a real quandary though, when there is data we do not yet understand and can come to doubt, yet we also grow aware of the nature of the predator and it's ways in us, as you describe above. Been there! Then maybe a little faith is needed (but only until we can verify a thing for ourselves), and maybe a little more logical questioning: If this is so, well then why that? Seems some folk don't stop to ask themselves why things are a certain way, they just plough in with the notion that 'their' view of reality must be correct.

If we don't learn to think for ourselves, someone or something else will do the thinkng for us.

 

[Miss.K]

What I find hard to understand about the "group think" claim that has been levelled at us from time to time is that it seems to refute the possibility that a group of people can study information and individually draw the same conclusion that the information is accurate.

I've thought something similar when I at times have had doubts if "sheepish group thinking" was going on. I mean, that it might not be sheepish, but just coming to the same conclusion.

If there is something that we don't understand, can't quite get our head around, then leave it be until enough data is collected one way or the other.

This has been my approach whenever I find myself disagreeing or not understanding a conclusion drawn by most here. Sometimes it has happened that I changed my mind, or understood why later, and sometimes the group has changed it's mind, or left open that it might not be right about a certain thing.

At times of doubt if it was a group for me, I have reminded myself that an intense struggle between yes and no has to be present to crystallize, and thus have though that I shouldn't be scared of the struggle, and not in such a hurry to decide that mine or the groups opinion is right or wrong.

The brain don't like having doubts and would rather draw a wrong conclusion than being in doubt, but it is very good for working on one self, to live with doubts, and learn to accept living with them, I think.


I don't think either that "sheepish groupthink" has never ever happened here (though I don't think it is happening in this case).
I understand that people are afraid of group-think, as it is scary, but I think at the same time it is hard to avoid completely. It is normal for humans to sometimes be lazy and just repeat without any real understanding, or at times one just have to trust something that one doesn't understand, until one understands it.

Ouspensky says that their friends (friends of people in Gurdieffs group) also thought they were sheepishly repeating stuff, in ISOTM as far as I remember.

I think perhaps that the anger that can come up when one has doubts, has to do with having hoped for having found "God" meaning someone who has no flaws and knows the truth about everything, that one can lean on, and be saved by, and being really disappointed that no humans are God, and that even among this group of brilliant compassionate people, one has to think, and live with doubts, and with the possibility that it is all wrong.

 

[d3ck3r]

One way to counter the knee jerk reactions of the predator when they come up in us is to remember this: No one here should accept without question, anything that he or she has not first verified for themselves.

If there is something that we don't understand, can't quite get our head around, then leave it be until enough data is collected one way or the other. (...) That kind of thinking helps nobody, and infact, those that do swallow things wholesale in such a way without first verifying them, don't do themselves or the forum any favours.

I fully agree, but it took me years to understand that. Why? read further...

There is no YOU MUST BELIEVE THIS OR BE DAMNED required or wanted here.

And here is exactly where you're wrong and this is one of the very reasons why I've lost my faith in this group.

Years ago in Casschat I wasn't told that, at least I don't remember, but even if they did told me that, the group still pushed me to believe them word by word. There was a tradition in that group, that if someone didn't agreed with the rest, he/she was pushed hard enough to make him/her leave the group on his/her own. This tradition ended up in brainwashing me because that group was the only thing I had back then (and I really needed support after seeing those 2 souls because it was extremely shocking and terryfing), so I believed them to be smarter than me, because it was exactly what they wanted and that was a condition to stay in the group.

This brainwashing procedure led me to similar situation as the one with Breton. In time with this group, I've gradually started to loose my intelligence and perceptivity. After some time (especially on later group Casstraux) I started to act like a child (I even remember Iza noticing it) and I had a really hard time in understanding what people talked about - I remember when it tooked me days to understand what Ark said to someone from the group. Thankfully both groups were closed and I was left alone and eventually my intelligence returned. After years I've discovered that the reason for my lost intelligence was similar to Breton's - I didn't listened to my heart (True Self), that in my case wanted to criticize this group for what they did.

So I wonder Alada, is your point of view on that problem same as Laura's and others?

But right away you must give up the idea that you have a clue about anything: you don't.

Those are Laura's words from this very topic. Did she proposed to me that I should think on my own and verify her data? Or did she demanded my submission to her ignorance right away? And what happened when I refused? - I was instantly banned and after it came doubtful assumptions about me, that distorted everyone's perception of reality. And I'm not saying here, that there wasn't any truth at all in those distortions, but just look how people react to me now - they are no longer able to see the light in me, they see only darkness. It is a pathological white and black worldview and it is Laura's fruit - a rotten apple.
And I really don't care what you all think about me, I'm simply showing that many people around this forum are far from "thinking on their own" and that someone (Laura) is thinking for them. If the egotism of the predator inside me would be my concern, than I would never came to this forum with wish to tell you what I have discovered, because things that I have discovered are so extremely dark and terrifying, that people will eat me alive for sharing them. From Castaneda...

After a moment's pause, long enough for me to recover, I asked don Juan: "But why is it that the sorcerers of ancient Mexico and all sorcerers today, although they see the predators, don't do anything about it?"
"There's nothing that you and I can do about it," don Juan said in a grave, sad voice. "All we can do is discipline ourselves to the point where they will not touch us. How can you ask your fellow men to go through those rigors of discipline? They'll laugh and make fun of you, and the more aggressive ones will beat the shit out of you. And not so much because they don't believe it. Down in the depths of every human being, there's an ancestral, visceral knowledge about the predators' existence."

My earlier egotism was a consequence of Laura's extreme ignorance in the very beginning of this topic. I came with good intentions of sharing what I've learned and she was the first one to throw a stone at me. I shared in this way, because I was curious if anyone will be interested in observing themselves as I did, to see if anyone else can find those things inside oneself and therefore to engage others in a collaborative study about it. I had the idea, that we can create that e-book together, what I have written there was only a very rough start of it. I wanted to engage others that would be interested, simply because I've read many times (from Laura too) that many people around this forum are doing nothing - and this doing nothing is another of Laura's rotten apples, because instead of inspiring others to conduct their own search, she is demanding submission and accepting everything from her without even giving it a thought. This is exactly what is seen in her words from this topic, that I've quoted above and it is exactly what caused my brainwashing in Casschat group. I didn't submit this time, because I've already knew what would happen - I would literally reject my True Self AGAIN and that isn't an option anymore.

[quote author=Laura"]
I have encountered people in very poor and backward circumstances who truly did not know that being clean was an option. They had been dirty all their lives. They looked curiously at my hands because they were not smudged with dirt.
[/quote]

You are extremely dirty with your constant aggressive violation of other people's wills and even more so with your ignorant lie, that you aren't dirty.

If we don't learn to think for ourselves, someone or something else will do the thinkng for us.

That someone/something (predator) is already doing the thinking for us. If it would be otherwise, than we wouldn't be in a sleep in the first place and therefore I've learned something even more important. It isn't only about thinking on our own. I've seen how predator manipulates me with his thoughts, so it isn't enough to say that we should think on our own. For me now, the truth is this: Think on your own, under the guidance of your heart.

And it is my heart/my True Self that guides me in this critical words and not because it wishes me to defame anyone, but because it wishes me to speak the truth aloud and to see what happens.

 

[luke wilson]

Decker... your last post has a lot of hurt and pain in it. I have no idea about your history.

What I know is that you are very rude towards Laura... you are also quite aggressive towards her as well. There is so much animosity.

Given all this pain, why are you still hanging around here? Maybe it's time to just walk away?? Let go of the pain and just walk away.

I have to say my experience is not as yours and I haven't seen evidence that warrants the deep anger you hold against this group. To me everyone here seems fine.

Just walk away? This place holds to much pain for you.

 

[d3ck3r]

Just walk away? This place holds to much pain for you.

That is exactly what I'm going to do if those people won't see what I tried to show them, so bans aren't needed. I'm simply giving them one last chance.

 

[Thebull]

You have spoken YOUR truth which you are perfectly entitled to do as are others who have participated in this thread.

You may have good intentions in saying that you want to share what you have discovered but it may be wishful thinking on your part the hope that people here are interested in it

 

[luke wilson]

Just walk away? This place holds to much pain for you.

That is exactly what I'm going to do if those people won't see what I tried to show them, so bans aren't needed. I'm simply giving them one last chance.

Why do you need anyone to see anything? What is this need for? I'm pretty sure they considered all you had to say...

“Victory, is like a boxer that hangs his gloves, after the consecutive losses; sometimes walking away is what builds character, than the actual fight. As humble fruit on a tree that falls to the ground and rots, never finding appreciation in the taste of mouths.”

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=d3ck3r]
Years ago in Casschat I wasn't told that, at least I don't remember, but even if they did told me that, the group still pushed me to believe them word by word. There was a tradition in that group, that if someone didn't agreed with the rest, he/she was pushed hard enough to make him/her leave the group on his/her own.
[/quote]

Per my understanding, that is basically how any organization/club/group works. People come together for working towards a common objective. When it becomes clear that someone in the group is either not willing or not able to work cooperatively with others, either that person leaves by himself or is shown the door. It does not mean the person is unworthy - it simply means that the person's and the group's aims and methods are not in harmony.

[quote author=d3kc3r]
In time with this group, I've gradually started to loose my intelligence and perceptivity. After some time (especially on later group Casstraux) I started to act like a child (I even remember Iza noticing it) and I had a really hard time in understanding what people talked about - I remember when it tooked me days to understand what Ark said to someone from the group. Thankfully both groups were closed and I was left alone and eventually my intelligence returned. After years I've discovered that the reason for my lost intelligence was similar to Breton's - I didn't listened to my heart (True Self), that in my case wanted to criticize this group for what they did.
[/quote]

If I felt I was losing my intelligence and perceptivity and I held the group responsible for that, later on when my senses returned, I would not have anything to do with that group any more.

The fact that this has not happened and there is this desire to "criticize this group for what they did" as well as

[quote author=d3kc3r]
That is exactly what I'm going to do if those people won't see what I tried to show them, so bans aren't needed. I'm simply giving them one last chance.
[/quote]

can indicate

- a pathological persistence to prove one is right and the desire to see those who do not agree to repent.

- a desire to have closure on what happened in the past with lot of bottled up anger and resentment

The first has to do with pathological self-importance. There is not much that can be done about that in an internet forum. So best to part ways and stay parted.

Assuming that the second is a viable possibility, I can only say to d3kc3r that neither he, nor the group is bad for holding differing points of view. If interaction with the group causes such animosity and resentment, it is best, for his own well-being, to cut off contact and preferably seek other avenues to express himself and even get some psychological counseling to help rid himself of the negative emotions regarding the group. While I was not part of casschat, based on my experiences with this group, I can say that nobody wanted or wants to cause unnecessary discomfort to d3kc3r. There is no one path that suits all people - we need to find what is good for us. Yes, it causes pain when expectations are dashed. Yet, that pain is part of life and how we deal with the pain determines how we move on with life.