Wronged by someone else and taking it out on myself.

[Danse la vie]

I think it is another way of keeping us helpless. I have courage, but I am convinced courage is something else. And what it takes to defend ourself physically is not courage.

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

Why thinking it would be courage that enabled us fighting a physical attack is part of the helplessness programming…
Thinking it would take courage to defend oneself physically implies that courage would be a gift or an ability, unequally distributed among humans. And those who would not be equipped would have some kind of defect or have undergone some injustice. Courage is one of those words used to screw our perceptions.
Having us believe that courage would be a gift or ability has the effect of making humans feel helpless, or guilty, jealous, unfinished, unequal, lacking… A helpful tool for the divide and conquer status quo: the war of humanity against herself can go on.

The act of facing an attack (with body, voice, or look) to defend ourselves comes from the core of ourselves. One can call it instinct or any word or metaphor that resonates right, no matter.
Core (from the latin cor –heart) was the original meaning of courage: it is innate. The ability of defending ourselves is inborn. Like is our natural ability to balance ourselves after most traumas.

See Mariama’s question to Gertrudes, observing that the one who locked herself silently and the one who spoke out loud are two different persons. Did it rain courage at the second break in?
When the core of ourselves cannot manifest, rather than insufficient ‘courage’ there must be a reason: perhaps an intruder is sitting on it. Trauma? Perhaps the path of our core is blurred and we are so weakened that our energy cannot flow. Poisoning ?
Perhaps some wiring has been inverted in the system. Belief?

At the other end, helplessness results in a big business of trauma healing. Who is really interested in letting people know what it actually takes to defend ourselves against physical attacks?

Danse la vie

 

[Danse la vie]

From another angle, the concept of processing our feelings to avoid getting traumatized, essential and sound in itself, can drift easily towards a focus on processing painful feelings only, forgetting about processing the empowerment experienced during the event, and how it can be a reference to extend our abilities in many directions.

You don't "forget" to "process empowerment", because they are two different things. The processing gives way to the empowerment. These things follow a natural order. First we have to get out of our heads and heal from the body 'upwards', as explained by Levine in In An Unspoken Voice. The state of being which accompanies empowerment is unmistakable and is bestowed on the healing person. S/he does not "choose" the moments of empowerment. This is only to be distracted by the illusion of self-empowerment.

The only conscious choice you need to make lies in sincerely wishing to heal. Once "processing" begins, the choice must be maintained throughout because your head will try to trick you back towards comfortable attachment to your suffering by tempting you with ideas about what a great person you are, how "focusing on the negative is unhealthy", and so on. You become "empowered" by trusting in the process and whatever it may bring up from inside you.

Empowerment is bestowed on you, not intellectually chosen by you. You see the difference?

The difference I can see is that we don’t seem to speak of the same thing. Even with translation I have trouble to understand the purpose of above post. So I cannot say I will answer it, but I’ll try to address some aspects of it that may a bit sort things out.

“In an unspoken voice”: on how healing trauma should be according to this book, I cannot respond as I don’t have the book and did not have it years ago when actively working on healing the traumas I underwent.

Years ago I did not find the books I needed. All I had was a sharp awareness, from childhood, of living in a world of permanent war, that I call the civil war, and an extremely strong will to repair the destructions that had been done to my life, and find how to avoid more traumas becoming lethal. Not finding books that were able to address my search in the stacks I had read led me to find how to heal trauma (and end up writing the books myself).
So, what I only know is how healing trauma was and is, from the core of myself. Without any written nor scientific references. A few information coming from my experience may be of use to clarify what my post was about.

The processing of trauma has not originated in a sort of ‘body versus intellect’ kind of duality (such a concept is otherworldly to me, I am unable to discuss on this base even in my native language), it was decided in the core of myself and processed and integrated in the whole of myself. There are certainly better words.
With examples from this thread I can try to express things I found during my work that may relate to your post (lean theoretical speech has no real meaning to me):

• One traumatic event doesn’t always mean one trauma. So : event does not equal trauma. There are often several traumas to one event, like a 3D puzzle. And we may integrate each piece in several “layers”, in one session as well as in several sessions, sometimes years distant from each other. And by integrating one “mother”piece we may integrate a whole string of other traumas of the same pattern, in bulk.

• One traumatic event can include one (or more) trauma (example: violation of one’s house), and also one experience of directly “rewriting” a trauma “live” (example: fight) so that this one actually does not become a trauma (like Gertrudes describes), and may even turn straight into an empowerment experience. We are the observer, we are the perceiver.
Then, what had begun just as any other trauma turns in fact to be no trauma. In this case for the person the empowerment experience of standing for herself (instead of being molested or paralyzed) is “a complete different thing” from the trauma of the violation of her house, and may be processed first. This, we can choose, and if we do so, the consequences may change our life, especially if we have been heart-broken at an early age, in the sense of core-split.
The violation of her house perhaps still remaining a trauma if not processed.

Thus for the searcher there is no reason why the gained power could not be integrated before the trauma is integrated. The self-safety gained by integrating that we actually often have the power to help ourselves generates a wave of joy that permeates the whole body. This feeling may even by contrast shed light on the trauma (ex: violation of the home or more) that could have gone buried for a long time, and help heal it sooner, and easier. All is linked in the dance of life, not all is opposed.
We can be laughing, and cry, it is healthy, we can feel reinforced, and depressed. And choose to embark on the journey of processing the trauma, or choose to block the process at this very portal where it proposes to begin.

It has been my repeated experience. Healing trauma naturally is how we keep ourselves balanced all the time. This is why in another thread I replied to Mariama that the complete loss of sight in one eye due to surgery actually did not make me suffer.

Crying (or feeling “depressed”) when we feel joyful is something very common in humans, only the possibilities that then open for our life are generally not seen, due to the whole programming to reverse our perceptions, and what I call the one and only religion on this planet: fundamentalist masochism.
Each of us can probably remember at least one experience of feeling joy while coming into the arms of someone who cares (or imagining so), taking one deeper breath (soupir in french, and more in the EE), and instantly starting to cry, because all the yet unprocessed traumas are bleeding through and ask for processing.

This perfect healing system of ours causes a huge amount of humans to run away from Love… without the help of any psychopath.

As for the ones ruled by their ego, yes it is clear that integrating their power first may prevent them from healing the trauma(s). The love and light dreamers will continue even more “focusing on the positive” (in my view, their perception is just as blinded as the one of those who focus on the “negative”). And for the ones who are in love with their suffering, the empowerment experience may not exist or go dissociated or even hidden. Everyone make their choices as usual.

• And that is not all. In addition, in the events when predators oblige us to fight physically to the point that we risk killing, I found that there can be “a trauma within the trauma”, or a trauma within the empowering experience: I lived the fact of being forced to deliver strikes of this magnitude to a human creature threatening my body as an ultimate violation of my will, and the most dangerous threat to the human soul. I described it as I found later in Castaneda: as a predator attempting to inoculate me his mind.

I hope what I spoke of is clearer.
It was far from my mind as I wrote the message that it would have this outcome. I am not able to answer posts of that kind in a reasonable time.

Danse la vie

 

[Alana]

I think it is another way of keeping us helpless. I have courage, but I am convinced courage is something else. And what it takes to defend ourself physically is not courage.

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

Why thinking it would be courage that enabled us fighting a physical attack is part of the helplessness programming…
Thinking it would take courage to defend oneself physically implies that courage would be a gift or an ability, unequally distributed among humans. And those who would not be equipped would have some kind of defect or have undergone some injustice. Courage is one of those words used to screw our perceptions.
Having us believe that courage would be a gift or ability has the effect of making humans feel helpless, or guilty, jealous, unfinished, unequal, lacking… A helpful tool for the divide and conquer status quo: the war of humanity against herself can go on.

The act of facing an attack (with body, voice, or look) to defend ourselves comes from the core of ourselves. One can call it instinct or any word or metaphor that resonates right, no matter.
Core (from the latin cor –heart) was the original meaning of courage: it is innate. The ability of defending ourselves is inborn. Like is our natural ability to balance ourselves after most traumas.

See Mariama’s question to Gertrudes, observing that the one who locked herself silently and the one who spoke out loud are two different persons. Did it rain courage at the second break in?
When the core of ourselves cannot manifest, rather than insufficient ‘courage’ there must be a reason: perhaps an intruder is sitting on it. Trauma? Perhaps the path of our core is blurred and we are so weakened that our energy cannot flow. Poisoning ?
Perhaps some wiring has been inverted in the system. Belief?

At the other end, helplessness results in a big business of trauma healing. Who is really interested in letting people know what it actually takes to defend ourselves against physical attacks?

Danse la vie, I still don't understand what you think/believe/suppose "it takes to defend ourselves against physical attacks". You say it's not courage, but something that comes from the core, then you write that "Core (from the latin cor –heart) was the original meaning of courage: it is innate." It seems you are engaging in what is known as legalistic nitpicking just for the sake of proving a point that is actually never proved, but produces a confused text, at best.

 

[anart]

Danse la vie, I still don't understand what you think/believe/suppose "it takes to defend ourselves against physical attacks". You say it's not courage, but something that comes from the core, then you write that "Core (from the latin cor –heart) was the original meaning of courage: it is innate." It seems you are engaging in what is known as legalistic nitpicking just for the sake of proving a point that is actually never proved, but produces a confused text, at best.

I agree completely. Danse la vie, you appear to be arguing for arguments sake without making any real sense at all. Concise and clear communication is not only externally considerate, it is a sign of a strong mind and spirit. If you could work on being more clear and concise it would be appreciated.

 

[Niall]

The difference I can see is that we don’t seem to speak of the same thing.

No, we don't. You speak in a veiled language no one can understand.

 

[pete02]

Fwiw Danse la vie I too went through both of your previous posts having a really hard time trying to understand just what it was you were getting at. I thought it was me until I continued down the thread and realized others had the same reaction.

 

[Laura]

Danse la vie, I still don't understand what you think/believe/suppose "it takes to defend ourselves against physical attacks". You say it's not courage, but something that comes from the core, then you write that "Core (from the latin cor –heart) was the original meaning of courage: it is innate." It seems you are engaging in what is known as legalistic nitpicking just for the sake of proving a point that is actually never proved, but produces a confused text, at best.

I agree completely. Danse la vie, you appear to be arguing for arguments sake without making any real sense at all. Concise and clear communication is not only externally considerate, it is a sign of a strong mind and spirit. If you could work on being more clear and concise it would be appreciated.

The difference I can see is that we don’t seem to speak of the same thing.

No, we don't. You speak in a veiled language no one can understand.

Fwiw Danse la vie I too went through both of your previous posts having a really hard time trying to understand just what it was you were getting at. I thought it was me until I continued down the thread and realized others had the same reaction.

Clearly, Danse la Vie, you aren't communicating very well here. And of course, if there is a failure to communicate, there is also failure to network, failure to practice External Considering, and general systems failure in human interactions. I'm thinking it is probably a language barrier thing, so I'll try to help you out by going through what you have written to show this to you.

I think it is another way of keeping us helpless. I have courage, but I am convinced courage is something else. And what it takes to defend ourself physically is not courage.

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

Here there is an immediate problem because word definitions come into play. The word "courage" - in English which is, as you notice, the language of science and diplomacy nowadays, as well as the language of the forum - means precisely the ability to do something necessary even when frightened or troubled or in pain, etc.

In short, it is something that comes up from inside, something like an instinctive animalistic response to a situation - something that comes from the psycho-physiological substratum, otherwise referred to as the "temperament."

Pavlov's studies of dogs - later extended to humans - covers this topic pretty well. I wrote about it in "Transmarginal Inhibition" as follows:

Pavlov discovered that an organism's level of tolerance to various stimuli varied significantly depending on fundamental differences in temperament. He commented "that the most basic inherited difference among people was how soon they reached this shutdown point and that the quick-to-shut-down have a fundamentally different type of nervous system." [1] This led him to pay increasing attention to the need to classify subjects according to their inherited constitution before applying experimental conditioning. Not only did dogs respond differently to conditioning according to their temperament, when a dog broke down under stress, its treatment depended on its constitutional type. For instance, Pavlov confirmed that sedatives were very helpful in restoring stability to the nerves of a dog that had broken down, but that the one type might require 5 to 8 times as much medication than that required by another type even if the body weight was exactly the same.

The Four Temperaments

Based on the empirical evidence accumulated through thirty years of research, Pavlov was convinced of the idea of the four basic temperaments. He noted that these temperaments approximated closely to those differentiated in man by Hippocrates. Though various blends of basic temperamental patterns appeared in Pavlov's dogs, they could be distinguished as such instead of by creating new categories.

The first type corresponded with Hippocrates's "choleric" type which Pavlov called "strong excitatory." The second type: "sanguine" which Pavlov named "lively", applied to dogs of a more balanced temperament. The normal response to imposed stresses or conflict situations by these two types was increased excitement and more aggressive behavior, but that is where the similarity ended. The "strong excitatory", or choleric, type would turn so wild as to be completely out of hand as opposed to the "sanguine" type which continued to behave with purposeful and controlled reactions.

The phlegmatic type, Pavlov called "calm, imperturbable," and the melancholic was called "weak inhibitory" type. In these two types, imposed stresses and conflict situations were met with more passivity or "inhibition" rather than aggression. The "weak inhibitory" type, or melancholic, constitutional tendency was to meet anxieties and conflicts with passivity and avoidance of tension. Any strong experimental stress imposed on such a dog's nervous system resulted in the dog being reduced to a state of brain inhibition and "fear paralysis."

Pavlov found that the other three types, when faced with more stress than could be coped with by the usual means, would also eventually enter a state of brain inhibition similar to that state entered very quickly by the melancholic/weak inhibitory type. He regarded this as a protective mechanism normally employed by the brain as a last resort when pressed beyond endurance. The "weak inhibitory" type was an exception to the other three types: this type of dog went into a state of protective brain inhibition more rapidly and in response to lighter stresses. The important finding was, of course, that the four basic natures responded differently to different levels of stress both before, during, and after experiments, the most important datum being that the weak inhibitory type was particularly susceptible.

Regarding the weak inhibitory type, Pavlov observed that though the basic temperamental pattern is inherited, every dog has been conditioned since birth by varied environmental influences which can produce long-lasting inhibitory patterns of behavior under certain stresses. Therefore, the final pattern of behavior of any given dog will depend on both its own constitution as well as specific patterns of behavior induced by prior environmental stresses. [2]

Why thinking it would be courage that enabled us fighting a physical attack is part of the helplessness programming…

Thinking it would take courage to defend oneself physically implies that courage would be a gift or an ability, unequally distributed among humans.

That is exactly the case as Pavlov proved.

And those who would not be equipped would have some kind of defect or have undergone some injustice.

That is exactly the case as Pavlov proved. There is a wide range of human types and abilities and "courage" is similar to musical or artistic talent. That is, it is rather rare for great courage to manifest in an individual.

Courage is one of those words used to screw our perceptions.

Nope.

Having us believe that courage would be a gift or ability has the effect of making humans feel helpless, or guilty, jealous, unfinished, unequal, lacking… A helpful tool for the divide and conquer status quo: the war of humanity against herself can go on.

You are clueless here.

The act of facing an attack (with body, voice, or look) to defend ourselves comes from the core of ourselves. One can call it instinct or any word or metaphor that resonates right, no matter.

And some of us have more "core" than others, more instinct than others, more courage than others. About 50% of the population don't even have individuated human soul potential. Another percentage probably have core essences so stunted and deformed that if they were a plant in a garden, the gardener would pull them out and toss them on the fire. And that is probably what the Living System is about to do to billions of defective humans.

Core (from the latin cor –heart) was the original meaning of courage: it is innate. The ability of defending ourselves is inborn. Like is our natural ability to balance ourselves after most traumas.

Sure. But some people have more "core" and "essence" and courage than others.

See Mariama’s question to Gertrudes, observing that the one who locked herself silently and the one who spoke out loud are two different persons. Did it rain courage at the second break in?

No, different temperaments. See Pavlov.

When the core of ourselves cannot manifest, rather than insufficient ‘courage’ there must be a reason: perhaps an intruder is sitting on it. Trauma? Perhaps the path of our core is blurred and we are so weakened that our energy cannot flow. Poisoning ?

Sure, all of those things CAN happen, but the most basic thing is that there are wide variances among human beings in terms of gifts, talents, abilities, temperaments.

Perhaps some wiring has been inverted in the system. Belief?

Your thinking on this topic is so weird I can only suggest that you are operating from a defective state of knowledge.
<snip>

This highlights one of the problems in France: it is VERY advanced in mathematics and engineering, but woefully retarded in the area of the humanistic sciences. Material - studies - that is easily available all over the world simply doesn't exist in France.

Very troubling.

 

[hiker]

A little late to the thread, but thanks to Pete and others for sharing your experiences, very insightful.
(btw Pete, it was a pleasure to meet you in Barcelona. Thanks for arranging the taxis, too bad the transatlantic and continental flight gates were separated, I’ll get you that bottle of water the next time :))

There was an incident I had recently, that I thought I could share. Perhaps it is ok to do it in this thread.

In my profession there are certain, ”traditional” ways of doing specific procedures. However it has emerged that these procedures can be done in a better way that as of yet is not mainstream. I have studied and educated myself about them nevertheless, and successfully tried them in my work. For someone not knowledgeable or a layman, these procedures might appear ”pseudoscientific”, unless properly explained.

A few weeks ago, during the weekend, we met up with two of my friends. I do not drink now, but my friends do and they started on the friday evening when we first met up. We went eating on the town and then headed to my place. The guys continued to have drinks with a plan to head back to the center to continue the ”good times”, myself I was planning to stay home as it was getting late.

We were discussing, and at some point I mentioned about the new methods I have tried at my work and the benefits they have. There are several benefits they bring to the table, and I mentioned one, brought up another. After this, one of my friends said in a sneering and downputting manner that it ”seems to be a solution to everything”. I was taken aback with the ferociousness of the comment, as I was just casually discussing the matter. Well, I then mentioned that ”yes, what I mentioned can be achieved, and also these further things can be done”. So he then said in a very mocking and tough manner that ”that just goes too far, how is it supposed to be possible”.

I was pretty much frozen at this point, having a friend verbally and in what simply felt an unjust way ”attack” me. I could not precisely recall what the example I brought up was based on and said that I could not exactly remember, to which he replied spitefully that ”that’s it, there you go!” (meaning as there was no truth in the matter).

I stammered that I could get this book where we could check the thing I mentioned, to which he replied that he could get ”a bible as well and check and confirm things from there too”, again in a pretty fretful way.

At this point I was starting to see red and get angry. Here was a guy that was a guest in my home, enjoying my hospitality and in return arguing against me, unprovoked, in a matter he does not have knowledge about (he works in a completely different profession.)
Somehow I held my tongue, realising that if I counter, things could escalate pretty quick to a nasty shouting match, especially as he was drunk. I got the aforementioned book from the bookshelf, and managed to check through my adrenaline cloud the point I had referred to.

This cooled things down a bit and the subject was dropped.

My ego was still storming though: ”if I could just show him some clear cut data and pictures from my computer he would realize how he is wrong and I am right!”, but an appropriate moment to do this had passed.

The guys after a while started to head to the town as planned, but if I had had no interest to go along earlier, after this episode I had even less. They left and I stayed back, still fuming and feeling violated by the scene. Sleeping that night was poor. The next day I met up with them, still agitated inside. Things were as if nothing had happened, the ”discussion” was not brought up.

I rationalised that as my friend could be labeled a skeptic and materialistic, my presentation (as the subject can be seen as pseudoscientific) might have been a red rag and triggered a program, in his drunkenness. Also he had witnessed the end result of an act of violence some weeks prior, so he probably was still in a traumatised state himself. (I spoke with him earlier about the incident on the phone.)

All this rationalisation did not make me feel much better.

I had a chance to talk in private with my other friend who witnessed the scene, and he confirmed that the opposing friend’s response was way out of proportion, and he would owe me an apology for certain. He however is not the ”apologizing kind”, so a spontane apology was not gonna happen. I also felt uneasy bringing the subject up, as his views were so heated. So I dropped the subject.

Reading about the importance of letting the feelings run their course on this thread has been helpful (reading In an unspoken voice currently as well). So, at first I guess I tried to rationalize too much, but then as I have let the feelings of rage, betrayal, hurt run freely I have been able to process the experience better. Talking about it afterwards with the witnessing friend was helpful as well.

(Btw, writing about the happening now still brings up some small reverberations of the feelings.)

Knowing the guy (since our pre-teens) not to be ”touchy-feely” and how he might handle the situation, I feel bringing the subject up later to go through it again would probably feel forced and uneasy. So maybe better to leave it altogether.

So, in my experience as well it is important to let the emotions run their course, and not to suppress or rationalize too much.

 

[RGG]

So, in my experience as well it is important to let the emotions run their course, and not to suppress or rationalize too much.

I agree with this, sometimes it takes me a few weeks for emotions to cool down so I can see things clearly. But from my point of view, maybe what you witnessed was the activation of some bazaar program that kicked in when his guard was down from alcohol or in reaction to the traumatic incident or both. If your friend is not the type that is in to self-improvement as you are, then he is probably still in full machine mode and unaware/controlled by programs as Gurdieff explains. I wouldn't take it too personally unless you notice a pattern with this person and his behavior toward you. Maybe your also in a bit of shock too since you never saw him behave this way and assumed he never would? I'm always shocked when I see the darker and more negative sides of my friends. I think a lot of people put their best face forward and you start to assume that that is all there is to the person. That what you see is what you get. Probably most of us here on the forum have learned the lesson from that assumption the hard way, I know I have.



side note: It was nice to meet you at the conference!

Rx

 

[Gwenllian]

Knowing the guy (since our pre-teens) not to be ”touchy-feely” and how he might handle the situation, I feel bringing the subject up later to go through it again would probably feel forced and uneasy. So maybe better to leave it altogether.

I am not so sure about leaving it altogether. It is not your problem that your friend is not touchy-feely. You felt wronged. Why not let him know? Even if you have to wait for an appropriate moment. Come to think of it, why wait for an appropriate moment? He insulted you in your own home and was drunk in your presence and home. Enough reason for you to talk to him. OSIT.

I confronted somebody the other day. I think I waited two months for an appropriate moment, because I assumed that it wouldn't help etc. etc. In the end I just picked up the phone and told her what I thought and what she should do to remedy the situation. We talked without getting into a fight, which was a good thing. (The subject was money, which can cause heated arguments. ;))
I felt so good about me taking some action. At least, I stood up for myself. Am not sure whether it helps, as she does not wish to acknowledge the huge problems she has and I do not wish to rub her nose in it. Just explain how I view things.

Hope this helps.

 

[pete02]

A little late to the thread, but thanks to Pete and others for sharing your experiences, very insightful.
(btw Pete, it was a pleasure to meet you in Barcelona. Thanks for arranging the taxis, too bad the transatlantic and continental flight gates were separated, I’ll get you that bottle of water the next time :)

It was very nice to meet you as well. :) That was a bummer that our gates went two different directions but my flight started to board shortly after we departed each other so we probably wouldn't have had much more time left anyway. As for the water, it would've just been more fluoride I would've had to detox from so no harm done there!

This sounds to me like the typical 'I'm right, your wrong' discussion that got a little offensive because your friend was drinking and most likely was not aware of just how offensive he was being. I've dealt with many people in this type of situation who were clueless the next day about their actions, myself included. Unless your friend is going to see the light when he is sober then I can't imagine what bringing the whole thing up will accomplish. Maybe your friend was just having a bad day at work and talking about it after hours just made that anger erupt. If you feel bringing it up again would feel forced and uneasy then I wouldn't bother but maybe turn to a little EE to try and help release the emotion. I could understand you feeling offended and maybe hurt about this incident but I don't think you should feel wronged about a disagreement of opinion with someone who wasn't thinking straight to begin with.

 

[Keit]

This sounds to me like the typical 'I'm right, your wrong' discussion that got a little offensive because your friend was drinking and most likely was not aware of just how offensive he was being. I've dealt with many people in this type of situation who were clueless the next day about their actions, myself included. Unless your friend is going to see the light when he is sober then I can't imagine what bringing the whole thing up will accomplish.

I agree that it's probably best to let the issue go. One of the things that comes to mind is the following:

Having your "say" is basically self-importance. It is giving your energy away to the illusion. Remember, the Universe will provide the right opportunity to "give what is due in due course.

Letting the emotions to run their course is definitely important, but having incidents like this is also a great opportunity to observe how one's self-importance is being scratched, and how eager it is "to prove things right". You also had an opportunity to learn more about your friend, and now will be able to make more knowledgeable decisions about what can or can't be shared with him.

Here is also the rest of Laura's quote (don't know where it was originally posted). Maybe will be useful.

It's all about control, discipline, forebearance, timing.

Nothing can temper the spirit of a warrior as much as the challenge of dealing with impossible people in positions of power. Only under those conditions can warriors acquire the sobriety and serenity to stand the pressure of the unknowable.

The perfect ingredient for the making of a superb seer is a petty tyrant with unlimited prerogatives. Seers have to go to extremes to find a worthy one. Most of the time they have to be satisfied with very small fry.

Warriors develop a strategy using the four attributes of warriorship: control, discipline, forbearance, and timing.

Don Juan said that what the new seers had in mind was a deadly manoeuvre in which the petty tyrant is like a mountain peak and the attributes of warriorship are like climbers who meet at the summit.

Control and discipline refer to an inner state. A warrior is self-oriented, not in a selfish way but in the sense of a total examination of the self.

Forbearance and timing are not quite an inner state. They are in the domain of the man of knowledge.

The idea of using a petty tyrant is not only for perfecting the warrior's spirit, but also for enjoyment and happiness. Even the worst tyrants can bring delight, provided, of course, that one is a warrior.

The mistake average men make in confronting petty tyrants is not to have a strategy to fall back on; the fatal flaw is that average men take themselves too seriously; their actions and feelings, as well as those of the petty tyrants, are all-important. Warriors, on the other hand, not only have a well-thought-out strategy, but are free from self-importance. What restrains their self-importance is that they have understood that reality is an interpretation we make.

Petty tyrants take themselves with deadly seriousness while warriors do not. What usually exhausts us is the wear and tear on our self-importance. Any man who has an iota of pride is ripped apart by being made to feel worthless.

To tune the spirit when someone is trampling on you is called control. Instead of feeling sorry for himself a warrior immediately goes to work mapping the petty tyrant's strong points, his weaknesses, his quirks of behaviour.

To gather all this information while they are beating you up is called discipline.

A perfect petty tyrant has no redeeming feature.

Forbearance is to wait patiently--no rush, no anxiety--a simple, joyful holding back of what is due.

A warrior knows that he is waiting and what he is waiting for. Right there is the great joy of warriorship.

Timing is the quality that governs the release of all that is held back.

Control, discipline, and forbearance are like a dam behind which everything is pooled. Timing is the gate in the dam.

Forbearance means holding back with the spirit something that the warrior knows is rightfully due. It doesn't mean that a warrior goes around plotting to do anybody mischief, or planning to settle past scores. Forbearance is something independent. As long as the warrior has control, discipline, and timing, forbearance assures giving whatever is due to whoever deserves it.

To be defeated by a small-fry petty tyrant is not deadly, but devastating. Warriors who succumb to a small-fry petty tyrant are obliterated by their own sense of failure and unworthiness.

Anyone who joins the petty tyrant is defeated. To act in anger, without control and discipline, to have no forbearance, is to be defeated.

After warriors are defeated they either regroup themselves or they abandon the quest for knowledge and join the ranks of the petty tyrants for life.

 

[hiker]

I agree with this, sometimes it takes me a few weeks for emotions to cool down so I can see things clearly. But from my point of view, maybe what you witnessed was the activation of some bazaar program that kicked in when his guard was down from alcohol or in reaction to the traumatic incident or both. If your friend is not the type that is in to self-improvement as you are, then he is probably still in full machine mode and unaware/controlled by programs as Gurdieff explains. I wouldn't take it too personally unless you notice a pattern with this person and his behavior toward you. Maybe your also in a bit of shock too since you never saw him behave this way and assumed he never would? I'm always shocked when I see the darker and more negative sides of my friends. I think a lot of people put their best face forward and you start to assume that that is all there is to the person. That what you see is what you get. Probably most of us here on the forum have learned the lesson from that assumption the hard way, I know I have.



side note: It was nice to meet you at the conference!

Rx

It was nice to meet you too :)

My friend is not into self-improvement in a meaningful way, and from what I have observed he's clearly controlled by his programs. So combined with the other factors his reactions can be worked out. Yes, a bit of a shock though to see such a dark side emerge in the moment.

I am not so sure about leaving it altogether. It is not your problem that your friend is not touchy-feely. You felt wronged. Why not let him know? Even if you have to wait for an appropriate moment. Come to think of it, why wait for an appropriate moment? He insulted you in your own home and was drunk in your presence and home. Enough reason for you to talk to him. OSIT.

I think referring to the incident discreetly in an appropriate moment might work here, if the moment arose. Perhaps pursuing that moment "by force" might in turn not work, all things considered, in this situation.

It was very nice to meet you as well. :) That was a bummer that our gates went two different directions but my flight started to board shortly after we departed each other so we probably wouldn't have had much more time left anyway. As for the water, it would've just been more fluoride I would've had to detox from so no harm done there!

Not to mention the plastic dissolving to the water

This sounds to me like the typical 'I'm right, your wrong' discussion that got a little offensive because your friend was drinking and most likely was not aware of just how offensive he was being. I've dealt with many people in this type of situation who were clueless the next day about their actions, myself included. Unless your friend is going to see the light when he is sober then I can't imagine what bringing the whole thing up will accomplish. Maybe your friend was just having a bad day at work and talking about it after hours just made that anger erupt. If you feel bringing it up again would feel forced and uneasy then I wouldn't bother but maybe turn to a little EE to try and help release the emotion. I could understand you feeling offended and maybe hurt about this incident but I don't think you should feel wronged about a disagreement of opinion with someone who wasn't thinking straight to begin with.

Yes these type of incidents seem to happen when people drink beyond what's reasonable. Now that I have stopped drinking, but occasionally still attend parties where people do, it is quite revealing to observe the "dynamics" while being sober yourself.
EE has definitely helped in releasing the emotions more.

This sounds to me like the typical 'I'm right, your wrong' discussion that got a little offensive because your friend was drinking and most likely was not aware of just how offensive he was being. I've dealt with many people in this type of situation who were clueless the next day about their actions, myself included. Unless your friend is going to see the light when he is sober then I can't imagine what bringing the whole thing up will accomplish.

I agree that it's probably best to let the issue go. One of the things that comes to mind is the following:

Having your "say" is basically self-importance. It is giving your energy away to the illusion. Remember, the Universe will provide the right opportunity to "give what is due in due course.

Letting the emotions to run their course is definitely important, but having incidents like this is also a great opportunity to observe how one's self-importance is being scratched, and how eager it is "to prove things right". You also had an opportunity to learn more about your friend, and now will be able to make more knowledgeable decisions about what can or can't be shared with him.

Here is also the rest of Laura's quote (don't know where it was originally posted). Maybe will be useful.

Keit, thank you very much for your comments. I now recognise better the part my self-importance played in this. And regarding my friend, I have more of an insight of what kind of information could be shared with him.

The quote from Laura is very instructive.

My thanks to you all for the input

 

[Gwenllian]

I am not so sure about leaving it altogether. It is not your problem that your friend is not touchy-feely. You felt wronged. Why not let him know? Even if you have to wait for an appropriate moment. Come to think of it, why wait for an appropriate moment? He insulted you in your own home and was drunk in your presence and home. Enough reason for you to talk to him. OSIT.

I think referring to the incident discreetly in an appropriate moment might work here, if the moment arose. Perhaps pursuing that moment "by force" might in turn not work, all things considered, in this situation.

Forget what I said, Hiker. :)
I have just read the response others have given and I think it is a much better idea to leave it.

I am not sure whether it applies to my own situation. But I think I projected that onto yours.

What I have been pondering these past few months (ever since I joined this forum) is that life is becoming so much easier.
To act upon Laura's quote ("the Universe will provide the right opportunity to "give what is due in due course"") that Keit provided means even more simplicity.
Doesn't mean I am not hurting or stay away from pain, it means more calm.

ATM I am dealing with social services that have accused me again of abusing my kids and although I feel wronged (I certainly felt wronged in the past) this is the first time I can let go of their small-fry petty tyranny. I am not saying it is a breeze all the time, but I do not feel the need to explain myself anymore. They have not responded yet to the letter that my friend sollicitor sent them. I assume they wish to make me sweat with the holiday season and all. But that is okay. I am canning meat at the same time, implementing and researching the diet and continue my life.

Thanks for the quote, Keit!

 

[hiker]

Forget what I said, Hiker. :)
I have just read the response others have given and I think it is a much better idea to leave it.

I am not sure whether it applies to my own situation. But I think I projected that onto yours.

What I have been pondering these past few months (ever since I joined this forum) is that life is becoming so much easier.
To act upon Laura's quote ("the Universe will provide the right opportunity to "give what is due in due course"") that Keit provided means even more simplicity.
Doesn't mean I am not hurting or stay away from pain, it means more calm.

ATM I am dealing with social services that have accused me again of abusing my kids and although I feel wronged (I certainly felt wronged in the past) this is the first time I can let go of their small-fry petty tyranny. I am not saying it is a breeze all the time, but I do not feel the need to explain myself anymore. They have not responded yet to the letter that my friend sollicitor sent them. I assume they wish to make me sweat with the holiday season and all. But that is okay. I am canning meat at the same time, implementing and researching the diet and continue my life.

Thanks for the quote, Keit!

Thank you for your post Mariama. Having contemplated the thing before and after reading the replies to my post, refrainment indeed seems to be the way to go here.

Sorry to hear you are having, what sound like, uncalled for troubles with the social services, hopefully things will resolve well :). Nice to hear you are handling the situation now with calmness and conception.

Keit's post was helpful for me too, certainly made me realize more fully the part I was playing in the scene. I was reading In an unspoken voice at the moment, and came across the "Samurai -example" shortly after going though Keit's post. Somehow the example strengthened the realization I had from Keit's comments and the quote from Laura, so thanks again Keit!


From In an unspoken voice (p. 321):

The vital balancing act between expression and restraint requires that when we experience a strong emotional feeling, we need not necessarily act upon it, as this teaching story demonstrates.

A young, brash samurai swordsman confronted a venerated Zen master with the following demand: "I want you to tell me the truth about the existence of heaven and hell."

The master replied gently and with delicate curiosity, "How is it that such an ugly and untalented man as you can become samurai?"

Immediately, the wrathful young samurai pulled out his sword and raised it above his head, ready to strike the old man and cut him in half. Without fear, and in complete calm, the Zen master gazed upward and spoke softly: "This is hell." The samurai paused, sword held above his head. His arms fell like leaves to his side, while his face softened from its angry glare. He quietly reflected. Placing his sword back into its sheath, he bowed to the teacher in reverence. "And this," the master replied again with equal calm, "is heaven."