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

[obyvatel]

[quote author=Archaea]
I think what Laura said here is pretty bad. I think this because it's an assumption, it might be true for all I know, but there is no way Laura could possibly know that d3ck3r hasn't done any work on himself, that's something only he could know, and even he might not know OSIT.
[/quote]

Hi Archaea,
The question is not how much work anyone thinks he has done on himself. If someone thinks he has done a lot of work, yet his behavior and expressions (writing in this case) tell another story, it is the latter that matters. d3ck3r picked a topic (predator's mind) that has been a research interest of Laura's for quite some time and considerable amount of material has been gathered, discussed and published on it. So there are relatively objective standards on which d3kc3r's writings can be assessed. The result of the assessment was Laura's statement. It is no different than in any other discipline of study.

[quote author=Archaea]
At any rate, I fully understand why this would PO d3ck3r off so much. If I felt like someone had made an assumption about me, and then banned me so I couldn't respond, it would probably make me angry. Can anyone else see that? Can anyone else see where d3ck3r is coming from?
[/quote]

d3ck3r came to the forum to enlighten us about his discoveries on the predator's mind. He did not get the response he was looking for. He got rude and repeatedly made insulting remarks towards Laura and the forum. In this situation I am not seeing how this is about assumptions.

[quote author=Archaea]

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.

Or... the control system is taking control...
[/quote]

Can you be more specific - what control system?

[quote author=Archaea]
Here's what I think, I think you need a strategy for dealing with the forum. I think it's a mistake for you to think that the people on this forum are any different to the people who aren't on this forum, I mean people who aren't on this forum always like to talk about how much they know as well. :P

Laura can be your petty tyrant, an impossible person in a position of power, in which case you need to humble your spirit. This means that you can't take up positions and defend them. The only reason you would be here is to help others in the miserable situation which the forum is in.
[/quote]

d3kc3r has got it all backward - and if you believe similarly, you are pretty much in the same situation. This is an internet discussion forum started by Laura. People participating here agree to abide by the forum guidelines. The majority of those who come here do so because they find the material interesting and helpful. Anyone who believes he needs to save the members here from the forum and its founder while using the forum itself as his mouthpiece is deluded at best and pathological at worst. d3kc3r or anyone who thinks like him is free to start his own forum/blog to propagate his views. This seems so obvious and self-evident.

If you base your reading of reality on Castaneda, without getting up to speed on psychology and ponerology, many things done here will seem incomprehensible. It will continue to appear as if people are speaking an alien language and doing things that are wrong. This is spelt out in the forum guidelines as well - in case you missed it or need a refresher.

 

[Alada]

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...

I think what Laura said here is pretty bad. I think this because it's an assumption, it might be true for all I know, but there is no way Laura could possibly know that d3ck3r hasn't done any work on himself, that's something only he could know, and even he might not know OSIT.

This statement shows that you have done no work on yourself either, that you do not know, that you are equally full of assumptions that automatically spring forth from the well of know-nothingness and keep your cup full to the brim.

If you are happy as you are, then may everyone wish you well in whatever you do, ain’t no problem in that. The problems come when people who betray their obvious ignorance and blindness aim to preach/teach others, as if they knew the way.

The reality is that you have no idea just how difficult it really is to apply Work ideas to yourself, to struggle with the predator in you. If you did try to struggle against the predator for yourself many things would become apparent as to why certain things are as they are. Only experience of the inner struggle can bring real understanding, the rest will remain hollow words, theory only.

Theory alone changes nothing, a struggle is required, it is very difficult and we need those with an understanding gained via their own struggle to guide us. And of course we have to have seen and come to certain realisations about ourselves. Until one has caught genuine glimpses of predator mind within oneself, the nature and scale of the problem remains illusive, of course most folk love themselves well enough as they are and so never look, never catch a glimpse. The very same who are happy to teach others their theories about the predator! Bonkers eh?

This thread as a whole as often reminded me of a poem by Kahlil Gibran, remembering that the Cs spoke of Love as Knowledge it reveals many things I think, especially in the context of discussion on this thread.

[quote author=Kahlil Gibran]

On Love

When love beckons to you, follow him,
Though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams
as the north wind lays waste the garden.

For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.
Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,
So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth.

Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.
He threshes you to make you naked.
He sifts you to free you from your husks.
He grinds you to whiteness.
He kneads you until you are pliant;
And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God's sacred feast.

All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart.

But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure,
Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor,
Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.
Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.
Love possesses not nor would it be possessed;
For love is sufficient unto love.

When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, "I am in the heart of God."
And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

Love has no other desire but to fulfill itself.
But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:
To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.
To know the pain of too much tenderness.
To be wounded by your own understanding of love;
And to bleed willingly and joyfully.
To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;
To rest at the noon hour and meditate love's ecstasy;
To return home at eventide with gratitude;
And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips.
[/quote]

One can see that without proper understanding of the word love and the idea Work, the full meaning of the poem, a deeper understanding of and full appreciation for it all remain hidden from the ignorant, meanings are taken at surface value only. Much like this thread no?

 

[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.

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".

I think some people accuse you of group-think because that's what they perceive is happening. i think you're right in that it may not be a logical perception, but I think invalidating their thoughts and feelings isn't helpful. I think this may cause emotional blocks in the other person, which I think would be an effect of the control system.

Though I agree that people who make claim of "group think" do so because that is what they perceive (except in some cases) I think that in many cases it is when the majority don't agree with one, that one perceives "group think".
As long as the "group think" agrees with ones own view, it is perceived as "I'm among good intelligent people who like me" and when not "I'm among bad/brainwashed people who are picking on me"

I think this can be useful to ponder when one is not being agreed with.

I think what Laura said here is pretty bad. I think this because it's an assumption, it might be true for all I know, but there is no way Laura could possibly know that d3ck3r hasn't done any work on himself, that's something only he could know, and even he might not know OSIT.

At any rate, I fully understand why this would PO d3ck3r off so much. If I felt like someone had made an assumption about me, and then banned me so I couldn't respond, it would probably make me angry. Can anyone else see that? Can anyone else see where d3ck3r is coming from?

It is not that I can't see where d3ck3r is coming from. For me it is pretty clear that someone who has studied the concept of selfimportance and predators mind, and come in screaming "you are dirty" or "I wanted to give them one last chance" clearly don't have a clue about anything.

I think that one should understand that this is a school, it is not a get together to stroke each others egos. It is not for people who think they can come here to teach. We already have a teacher.
Not everyone can go to the school, not everyone are fit to understand the concepts.
There are many other schools where people like d3ck3r can get his ego stroked if he wish, and I am for one really happy that people like that are not allowed to disrupt the learning for people who are here to learn.


PS: Thank you for the poem Alada, snif

 

[luke wilson]

Archae, rather than completely splitting, I think you should think of the notion of taking in words that seem oppositional. I can totally understand what you are up against, that whole notion of not being able to think with the way you already think. It can be a devastating concept to come to terms with, let alone apply. Its almost like someone calling into question your physical senses, and dismissing all the information you gather from your senses. What does that even mean?

I think basically, what it means is a call to you to be more flexible, to be open to being questioned, to be open to the notion that maybe some of the most fundamental notions you have, may not be entirely accurate. I don't necessarily think it means you dismiss everything you know about yourself, rather you should approach life from a position of malleability, where you are open to new information. And this new information can also act to change some of the old information you had, at this point depending on the type of information, there may be internal conflict.

For me, unlike you, Decker was rude, aggressive and abusive, ontop of this, he was trying to introduce theories that were just plain wrong and he wouldn't consider alternative viewpoints. He was rigid and dogmatic. So I think you should take that into consideration when you are looking at this whole thread!

Regarding your perception of some control mechanisms, I would urge you concentrate on your actions, get more involved, dive in, actually live through experience, not just perception, sure you'll come into situations where things aren't harmonious, but you can live through it and come out the other end better!

 

[Nienna]

It is fairly common for people who are not doing the Work to call those who are doing the Work as "followers", "group thinkers", "cultish", etc.

Because so many people here on the forum are interested in bettering themselves, it follows that they would be reading things that would help them do just that. Reading, applying and understanding what they are reading. Not all do this, and, they are the ones who shout, "GROUP THINK" about as a way to justify why they don't see what others see.

They, also, don't understand about mirrors, real external considering (which is not all about making people feel good), shocks and so forth so go on to call Laura, especially, and the forum, generally, as mean, brutal and all other types of nasty names. They don't read the threads - and books - about how we don't really see ourselves as well as others see us. But, not only, do we need to read these books, we need to apply them to ourselves and understand them. Only then, when we see what is being pointed out to us in ourselves, can we see it in others very clearly, even in the writings.

When more and more people do this, they begin to start to see things in the same way. Not because they are following a leader, but because they are gaining the same knowledge, seeing the same things.

Here's what is written about it in CassWiki:

In common usage, esoteric means the inner or more advanced aspect of a spiritual teaching. Exoteric means the outer form of a teaching, one that is shown to the public. By contrast, in Fourth Way discourse, humankind is divided into four circles according to progress on the path of conscious evolution. There is first the outer circle of exterior men; then three progressive circles of interior men follow: the exoteric, the mesoteric, and the esoteric.

The outer circle of exterior men corresponds to the default state of man – of people not engaged in esoteric work. In this circle it is rare that any two individuals should precisely understand each other on any matter of consequence or complexity. All see the world through thick lenses of subjectivity and are subject to the confusion of tongues alluded to in the Babel story of the Bible.

The exoteric circle is the outermost circle of interior or consciously working man. The four Ways lead from the outer circle into the exoteric one.

The understanding of exoteric man is theoretical and contemplative; they know more than they can explain or put to practice, but some degree of shared clarity has begun to form. Then comes the mesoteric circle, the members of which understand each other precisely and possess the information of the esoteric circle but are not capable of bringing all of it to practice. Finally, the esoteric circle consists of the persons having attained the development possible in the form of human life. Their actions cannot be in contradiction with their knowledge and the same knowledge is clear to all members of this circle.

The central idea is that as man progresses, the world is seen with increased clarity. Therefore misunderstanding and ambiguity decrease along the way and actions become naturally aligned since all see the same world and become increasingly capable of acting on esoteric principles.

George Gurdjieff says that the universe needs a group of conscious humans. A certain number of people must have attained the esoteric level by a certain time in order for a cosmic purpose to be fulfilled. The branch of the ray of creation corresponding to the Earth will otherwise wither and be wasted.

So people who are not doing the Work, or think they are doing it when, in reality, they are not, will react aggressively towards those who are really doing the Work.

 

[sitting]

Laura can be your petty tyrant, an impossible person in a position of power,

I think that remark is disrespectful and out of bounds. You can do better Archaea.

 

[wr4]

Work is very simple, but for some reason hard to do. You probably should question youself why are you going to post: Did you really understood writings from the posts, or are you just lying to youself to see what's your mind want to see. You write one sentence, how much your mind's lies and what intent you put there. What experiences/truths/knowledge you have to back it up, are they real or lies from your mind.
If you have no knowledge and real understanding from knowledge (only your mind's lies), you may need to reread the topic all over again, just to make one sentence. When your understanding rise, the faster you can make the posts.

You probably shouldn't rush when posting. When you really do the work with yourself, you may even have difficulties to walk, and need to relearn again how to walk by yourself as you did when child. With work, you could (probably) even have ability to affect your heartbeat, see personalities from texts, and most probably more than these.

 

[Mike]

Laura can be your petty tyrant, an impossible person in a position of power,

I think that remark is disrespectful and out of bounds. You can do better Archaea.

I agree. IMO pretty disgusting comment Archaea. So you want someone to systematically harass a founder of the forum whom you in all likelihood wouldn’t know the significance of Castaneda and petty tyrants if it wasn’t for this founder, Laura.

Obyvatel,

I've read the forum guidelines and they are reasonable. I'm very conscious of what I was doing wrong last time, and I've put a lot of thought into it, so I'm confidant it won't happen again. But, if it does you can tell me and I'll listen because I don't want to get banned from posting again.

I think you need to take a step back to where you were when you started posting again and reconsider yourself. At least in my mind you should be considered for another ban.

 

[Leonarda]

Laura can be your petty tyrant, an impossible person in a position of power,

I think that remark is disrespectful and out of bounds. You can do better Archaea.

Yes, and this forum is Laura's house, that she opens to anyone who has a real interest to learn and frankly I can't think of any other person who does what she does.

 

[RedFox]

When a person is confronted with facts that contradict currently held belief systems, they have one of two choices. The first choice is to go into denial mode by rejecting the facts as being untrue in order to prop up their chosen belief system and continue living as before. The second choice is to accept the new data and try and reconstruct a new internal paradigm or map of reality that accommodates the new information, which may mean putting into question all other beliefs associated with the old model.

The second choice is difficult and takes a great deal of strength in order to let go of one's preconceived ideas and accept the new and factual data. The first choice is easy because it requires no effort, pain, sadness, or reordering of one's life or values. It is also more comfortable, and because humans generally prefer comfort over pain, the first choice is often the default option.

It's worth mentioning that the pain involved in seeing yourself and world clearly can be quite considerable - it can be at the same level as breaking your arm or leg.
If you have lived a life where the pain of challenging your own ideas is so great it feels like a broken bone, then you learn pretty quickly to avoid and counter and Fight everything that 'causes you pain'. All completely automatically.
You don't even stop to think or self observe, because why would you if it feels so awful? Which is the terror of the situation - the world is full of people who just operate on what feels good or bad, and are manipulated by those that know how to push those buttons (because manipulating and controlling others feels good to them!) - it's all mechanical.
There is no self observation or reflection, just automatic defensive responses because it hurts.

So why would anyone want to be able to break out of that? People lead perfectly 'normal' lives without ever waking up (that way they can avoid all pain, or so they tell themselves). Maybe the following will help?

http://www.sott.net/article/273085-SOTT-Talk-Radio-Into-the-Mystic-Interview-with-Laura-Knight-Jadczyk

[..]Joe: Yeah. It's kind of like, from what you're saying, it's almost like you're suggesting that most people are born with some kind of an innate desire to know the truth, but religion comes along very quickly in their lives...

Laura: Gives them the answers.

Joe: And tells them what the answer is. And because they're maybe immature, as children basically, they just adopt that, and then they - like it globs into them.

Laura: And then it feels good, it feels safe. The fear of being rejected or the fear of being called a heathen or whatever, but those things never bothered me. And I guess there's also the other thing, because Altemeyer points out that most people who convert to religion usually have problems that they can't solve in their life, and they need somebody outside to give them some kind of strength. And there's a psychologist named Schmukler who wrote an interesting bit about endoskeletons and exoskeletons, there are people who feel strong inside and people who don't. There are authoritarian followers who need to be told what to do, and there are people like me who don't like to be told what to do.

That was another thing, because in spite of all this, I had a great deal of freedom growing up. I grew up in Florida when it was a paradise, and I had a lot of freedom, you know, a lot of time to really enjoy myself in the wilderness or the wild, or whatever, because we had a farm and beach, and swimming, and tromping around in the woods, and hanging out with our friends, and it was a great time growing up in the '50s and '60s when you weren't afraid of everything and everybody, and you'd go around, be gone for hours, and come back home.

So there were just a lot of elements that just came together. And I think also being intellectually inclined, and growing up in a family where reading was very important and education was extremely important, was a very powerful influence on me. I started reading when I was three years old, and by the time I was 10, I was reading probably at College level. And by the time I was in junior high school I was reading a book every single day, an entire book, because at that point I had a great teacher who gave us a six week training in speed-reading. And I also kind of have a semi-photographic memory, I don't forget much.

Niall: I see. How many books do you read a day now?

Laura: Well now I don't read books a day because I spend so much time working with our people, with our forums, and doing research, that I spend a lot of time scanning and reading things from the internet, or reading scholarly papers and so forth, and I do most of my - I don't know, I guess it would probably amount to a book a day, the amount of reading I do, because I really do a lot of reading, but it's not in books, it's mostly online. And then when I go to bed at night I spend a half hour to an hour reading whatever my current research topic is. Usually they're very dry books that nobody else in the world reads, or very few, only scholars read them. But I read them, and I actually enjoy them!

Joe: That's the masochist in you!

Laura: Yes, it's the 'do it no matter how bad it hurts'.

Joe: It's that protestant work ethic.

Juliana: Speaking of masochism, it seems that a lot of people write to us about why is nothing easy? Why do you have to pay so much? Why isn't there any free lunch? And it seems to me that, from what you're saying, since you were little, you kept that curiosity, almost like a child has, to learn, and learn, and learn, and assimilate. And that comes, also, with a price, but you're not afraid of that, or you learned somehow that suffering leads to something that is much more valuable. And we still keep getting this reaction that "oh it's depressing" or "I just want the easy way". How did you come to realise that that wasn't your path?

Laura: Oh, that's kind of a tough one. Well I'll give you, I mean, there were many incidents that I observed in my life where people took the easy way and it always ended badly, I could see it. And the thing was, like I just mentioned, I think probably one of the most amazing gifts that I was given genetically, and for which I am enormously grateful, is my memory. And I wouldn't forget when I saw these situations. Somebody would do something, something would happen, they would take the easy way out, or "Oh it'll be fine", or "Least said, soonest mended", and then disaster would follow. And it was like, couldn't they see that coming? They took the easy way, they wanted to feel good, and disaster followed.

And you know, it really struck me very powerfully. When you go through life observing, and of course you read a lot of stories, and you read biographies, and I read lots and lots of history, and over and over again, whenever I would read a story about somebody who took the easy way, or wanted to feel good, it was always disaster! I remembered it, it just piled up in my head like a giant mountain building in my mind, that whenever people do that, it's bad! It's obviously bad. And I could see it also happening in people's lives around me. And some of those instances, some of them would be kind of personal, but I can give one little example.

I had a girl friend when I was just out of high school. And she was already married and had two or three children - she was a little bit older than I was. And I was at her house one day, and her little girl was diabetic, had become diabetic very early in her life, so it was like type I diabetes, and she was already on insulin, and she had lots of problems. She had two or three other children and her husband. And the thing was, this girl wasn't allowed to have many things because of her illness, but the family didn't see any reason that they should deny themselves what she couldn't have, just to give her moral support, or in solidarity with her.

So there was always a lot of the things she couldn't eat, cookies and candies, things like that, that she kept on top of the refrigerator. And I was there, and the little girl was crying "Mommy, I want some candy! I gotta have some candy!"

"No, no. If you have candy you'll have to increase your medication, you may have to go to the doctor, it could make you sick...."

"Oh mommy, I gotta have it..."

And then after five minutes of this or so - of course I wondered why it was all there, why doesn't the family give all that up? Give her support? Why do they put it on the refrigerator where she can see it? And finally after five minutes of crying for it, her mother says "Oh alright, but you know what's gonna happen, you're gonna have to have an extra shot, da da da..."

And she gave this child with diabetes candy, which she shouldn't have had, knowing what it was going to do to her, and setting up a pattern in her life where doing the easy thing, taking the way that was easy, feeling good, was deadly. And I remember that incident, and it kind of froze in my mind forever, because it symbolised everything and everybody that I had ever seen or known about who took the easy way. And I asked her, I said "Why did you do that?" And she says "But I love her so much, I can't say no."

It just staggered my mind that she could say "I love her so much", and what that kind of love meant. Because, as it turned out, this child died rather young.

Niall: And what's happening there? Is she not able to foresee - the mother - the consequences? She must have been told explicitly...

Laura: Well certainly she was told explicitly what would happen if she didn't do some monitoring and not let things get out of hand. It was just horrifying. It was horrifying to me. And how many people are like that? "I can't tell her no, I can't say no, I want to feel good", because more than anything else the mother wanted to feel good. She didn't want her child to say "Mommy, I don't like you, I hate you", and, you know...

Joe: Well it kind of involves a certain fairly uncommon and pretty deep understanding of human psychology as well, or it would require that for a parent in that situation to act in the right way, to know that, in a general sense, human beings will very often demand things that aren't good for them, or want things that aren't good for them. And if someone is in a position of responsibility over them, or a friend, or even someone who can give advice, kind of should give advice to a person to save them from themselves sometimes, because people don't always make the right decisions, right? So it's kind of like, just because someone says "I really, really want this, will you help me to do it?", you don't just go along and do it because they're your friend if you can see that it's bad for them. I mean it seems fairly prosaic in a way, but so many people just give in; can't say no.

Laura: They want to feel good. And it's particularly difficult in the parent-child relationship, because it's mostly about narcissism. "I want my child to make me feel good, and when the child is not making me feel good I want to do whatever it is", even to the point of harming the child's health. And I don't know if it takes really deep psychology to understand that, but it obviously was a little deeper than what she could understand.

Joe: Well at least a bit of reflection.

Laura: Yeah, but people don't reflect and they don't think, and more than anything, this is the thing. More than anything I saw that people wanted to feel good. That theme repeated over and over again in things that I was observing in other people's lives, and, you know...[..]

So when you can't stop and observe yourself (even for a second) because you habitually avoid everything painful, it ends up playing out as above.
Fear and anxiety generally comes from trying to avoid pain - fear of 'a painful outcome'. This is probably where 90% of peoples stress comes from too.
Apathy, disassociation, addictions - 'I can't handle any pain so I'll escape from it'.

Generally speaking people need to have had enough of there own suffering in order to understand this, and to want to change.
Incidentally, once you understand what the alternative is and can act bravely (just like stepping into a cold shower), face the pain and start to grow beyond that automatic existence.
The irony is the imagined pain (the fear of facing and experiencing pain) is often 100x greater than the actual pain, but is completely colored by all of our experiences of painful situations in our lives up until this point.

I'd be curious to know how many people who are fearful of networking or the Work have taken cold showers, even just a quick blast for a few seconds? If yes, is it a strict rigid rule (self punishment) or do you do it with humor?
And how many people who've taken cold showers have noticed that there ability to handle pain and the Work has changed?

Very few of us where taught how to handle pain (even just every day life stuff) and 'survive', so we just escape instead.

*edit*

Life is always going to have suffering and pain. So do you suffer mechanically or do you use it to grow?

 

[truth seeker]

The irony is the imagined pain (the fear of facing and experiencing pain) is often 100x greater than the actual pain, but is completely colored by all of our experiences of painful situations in our lives up until this point.

This is true, in my experience. When we grow up in environments that aren't safe and accepting of who we are, as we are, we may begin to believe that the world is a battlefield and everyone is our enemy. Only when we come to acknowledge our own wounds and negative feelings we hold towards ourselves, the very feelings that alienate us from our own humanity, can we begin to begin to take steps towards connection with our true self.

 

[Miss.K]

I'd be curious to know how many people who are fearful of networking or the Work have taken cold showers, even just a quick blast for a few seconds? If yes, is it a strict rigid rule (self punishment) or do you do it with humor?
And how many people who've taken cold showers have noticed that there ability to handle pain and the Work has changed?

Very few of us where taught how to handle pain (even just every day life stuff) and 'survive', so we just escape instead.

*edit*

Life is always going to have suffering and pain. So do you suffer mechanically or do you use it to grow?

I have tried taking a few moments of cold shower a few times.
I definitely approach it with humor (it is rather funny that a large animal like me should be so afraid of a bit of water)
But I have the spine of a jellyfish, and am very halfhearted in my attempts to be the Iceman so far (I try to convince myself at times that it would be a good thing, but a lot of my I's are really into feeling comfortable, and they usually win)

Of cause I'm afraid of the Work, and networking, or I would have done more of it sooner, -though part of my not participating too much also were to learn more, in order to be able to participate in the future without being too embarrassingly stupid (both as internal and external consideration )

I once heard a Buddhist saying "Pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional" and yes, I've often found that the fear of pain is a lot worse than the pain itself.
I used to have an irrational fear of torture, and had to go through some nasty scenarios in my mind to come to terms with accepting pain when it is impossible to avoid (the more one resists the worse it hurts)
-that being said, I still hope I never have to come to terms with being tortured in this life..though I hope to develop enough will to be able to handle a bit of cold water (God make me good, just not today)

-edit clarity-

 

[ggen]

Miss K

When I first tried the cold showers, I too had a difficult time handling the physical pain. I went for too cold, too fast, and for too long.

Perhaps you could take just a regular shower and at the end of your routine, turn the water down little by little until it's as cold as you can tolerate?

That's what I did to acclimate my body. For my mind, I kept repeating to myself, "This doesn't hurt, it's good for me."

If you try this, you may find that the cold doesn't bother you so much.

Recently I tapered off a medication and one of the best therapies for the physical withdrawals was a cold bath.

fwiw

 

[Miss.K]

Miss K

When I first tried the cold showers, I too had a difficult time handling the physical pain. I went for too cold, too fast, and for too long.

Perhaps you could take just a regular shower and at the end of your routine, turn the water down little by little until it's as cold as you can tolerate?

That's what I did to acclimate my body. For my mind, I kept repeating to myself, "This doesn't hurt, it's good for me."

If you try this, you may find that the cold doesn't bother you so much.

Recently I tapered off a medication and one of the best therapies for the physical withdrawals was a cold bath.

fwiw

Thank you Brightlight,
I can hear my I's gathering for another meeting to discuss if we should try that,
-some don't want to try at all because if they start they will have to go through with it in order not to appear as the spineless creatures they are, as shame can be worse than pain, but others talk about getting serious with the Work :)

 

[Joe]

I think some people accuse you of group-think because that's what they perceive is happening. i think you're right in that it may not be a logical perception, but I think invalidating their thoughts and feelings isn't helpful. I think this may cause emotional blocks in the other person, which I think would be an effect of the control system.

I think you're missing an important point here. The people who claim "group think" are almost always people who have an agenda of their own that they are pushing. When they don't get their way, they try to blame everyone who has disagreed with them by lumping them all into "group think". It's a pretty transparent maneuver. It's not about invalidating someone's thoughts and feelings, it's about pointing out the flaws in those thoughts and feelings. A lot of people don't like to hear that. We try hard to work with people on this, but for some, there's no way through, and that's fine. They are entitled to their view, but we don't share it and we're not interested in having it shoved down our throats. It's pretty simple. People disagree all the time on particular points. But a person really reveals themselves when they can't agree to disagree (if a synthesis and understanding can't be reached), and resort to what amounts to name-calling. That's precisely what the "group think" meme is, slander in an effort to get their way.

As for rather "sensitive" people such as yourself; when someone disagrees with you or tells you an uncomfortable truth, you tend to attack the messenger. That kind of behavior might be tolerated in kindergarten, but it isn't tolerated here.