Wishful thinking/strategic enclosure

[Johnno]

Actually I had a ponder about the Emperor's New Clothes and it could be taken esoterically. That is, it has a hidden inbuilt meaning.

The small child being the conscience (or real "I" as Ouspensky describes as having the development of a small child), the "crowd" could be the multitude of small "i"'s and the emperor being the the upside down outside world.

When conscience is offended one tend to speak up!

 

[Buddy]

The small child being the conscience (or real "I" as Ouspensky describes as having the development of a small child), the "crowd" could be the multitude of small "i"'s and the emperor being the the upside down outside world.

When conscience is offended one tend to speak up!

I understood the reference right off 'da bat! I've heard it expressed as the natural state of a child at a certain age when they're expressing a condition of being honest and free from all guile. - That is, before they're dragged, sometimes kicking and screaming, into the upside down 'normal world'(figuratively speaking).

Might that description of the 'real I as having the development of a small child' be somewhat akin to how each of us feel like we used to be 'way back when' with the attendant vunerability and lack of knowledge? hmmm.

 

[Buddy]

Just to add a point to the glossary definition, a petty tyrant might not have to be an individual per se.

If you look at the society we are living in, you can see most of the petty tyrant's features : tormenting with violence and cruelty, inducing fear and sadness, generating anger and frustration.

Thanks.
It seems the petty tyrant is a useful metaphor all the way up and down the scale; from a 'little I' to the widest scope of human endeavor.

 

[bedower]

This is a late posting to this thread, but I watched 'The Lost Book of Nostradamus' on Staurday evening. This was the thread that came up when I searched to see if there were any comments about it. It has taken the intervening days to read through the 20 (!) pages of posts, and very enlightening they are!

Laura, when you've mentioned Vincent Bridges and Jay Weidner on various threads, I made a mental note that these were 'bad' guys and never chased up their works; your word was good enough for me. So when they appeared on 'The Lost Book' I was curious to see them in the flesh, as it were.

And now I understand that while I read and understood your words about them, it was at one remove and without true comprehension on a deeper level, because I was not involved personally.

Watching them spout their lies and disinformation on this programme was like a physical shock! And they sounded so plausible and sincere, and would come across as totally believable to people with a certain mind-set, if I can use that phrase.

It wasn't far into this programme before the thought came into my mind that 'The Lost Book of Nostradamus' was tertiary to the real issues, the first of which was the reinforcement of the offical 'line' of 9/11, mentioned several times, as I recall; i.e. it was wicked 'Muslim terrorists'. The second issue, to me, was the demonisation of Islam. In fact, the programme was just vile hate-inciting propaganda against Muslims and their religion, disguised as in 'honest' interpretation of this 'lost' book's illustrations. Even the reviewers quoted on this thread picked up on this. I was stunned to discover the programme was made in 2007. That is only last year, and we have all seen how the war-on-Iran-machine has been cranking up since then.

Now I really do understand what you meant about them, having witnessed for myself the way this precious pair work. The other two participants were no better.

It is no real surprise that this was aired on the 'History' channel; every other programme seems to be an excercise in propaganda, with lots of reinforcement of how important the military is, and much emphasis is given to battles past and present.

All in all, 'The Lost Book of Nostradamus' is a thoroughly disgraceful piece of work.

 

[bedower]

Thanks to those of you who posted about 'Strategic Enclosures' and 'Considering', especially to Autobot for the Gurdjieff quote; that helped clarify a lot for me. While most of it has been posted before, it seems that every time I read it again, something seems to 'shift' a bit more and I get clearer insights each time. Thanks. (External considering is something I'm working hard on.)