Thanks for this thread, 3D Resident, and for all the great responses. I hope this post may help someone.
The Gunslinger said:
I used to have a tendacy to go off in the deep end and just blurt out everything I would read about to anyone within earshot - but most don't take too kindly to that approach
I did too. I believed it was a violation of my personal integrity to "let it go" if I felt something was wrong and I knew 'better'.
The Gunslinger said:
Funny enough though, I was turned onto channelling and esoterica by someone blurting out to me how they found "the most wonderful book" and I just haaaaad to read it. In case you're wondering, it was "The Spirits' Book" by Allen Kardec.
That's great! Another funny thing about that is the unpredictablity of that approach, thus the need for some 'discernment'. You
could 'kick-start' someone onto the path of knowledge, or simply make your Work even more difficult than it had to be if they don't 'receive' it the way you wanted them too.
gwb1995 said:
I still have questions on when I might be crossing the line and violating ones free will. Any other suggestions on how I might hone my skills and know when I quit being externally considerate and cross over to being internally considerate?
3D Resident said:
But the difference between this situation and the more recent one is that in the recent case, the person came right out and said she didn't believe the conspiracy and that all who did were stupid.
Speaking of "crossing the line and violating ones free will", a lot of helpful information can be found in the following thread:
"Helping:" STS or STO?
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9245.msg66332#msg66332
I still experience occasional reactions to comments like the one 3D Resident mentioned above. I've come to understand, however, that this is a lesson for me, not for them. I feel like, in most cases, these are just typical intimidation/manipulation comments that help the speaker feel more solid, or confident in their belief by shutting off possible objections.
Self-observation and strategic enclosure practice helps create the space for me to see and understand my own reaction as well as see that the person is 'coming from' a position that really has nothing at all to do with me, thus, any 'challenge' to my belief or opinion is illusory...and no reaction is necessarily required.
Regarding external consideration, I think a useful formula to follow, especially early in the Work, is represented in the following quote:
[quote author=anart]
Brevity and a high signal to noise ratio is indicative of an understanding of External Consideration.
If you cannot employ a Strategic Enclosure and cannot practice External Consideration then you cannot proceed.
[/quote]
Brevity and a high signal to noise ratio, in a context where I cannot overcome a compulsion to respond, might mean to keep my response brief and limited to only what I know to be true because it can be successfully defended.
Later in the Work, when our knowledge and understanding has increased to the point where we know and can control ourselves and we are able to use shocks from 'outside' sources, we can attempt fully interactive dialogs on any subject we know.
But to reach that point, the below quote seems to express a necessary ingredient (emphasis mine):
From the SOTT editors in the article:
-Connecting-the-Dots-Israel-s-Blood-Fest-Meets-the-Voice-of-the-People-as-the-Obama-Show-Begins:
"Shouldn't we start raising the alarm and spreading information in intelligent ways before the tide of madness engulfs more innocent people and no one remains to speak up?
But to do that, we must first understand with as much clarity as possible what is really going on."
--for what it's worth... :)
