|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 9, 2024 13:24:16 GMT -5
Reading your messages today, and there's something I don't fully understand....maybe you have explained it, but it would be good to hear it in simple terms. Your model of 'true self-essence and false self' is very meaningful to you. What are the qualities of the true self-essence? Are these qualities universal to all true selves, or are there some that are unique to each of us? Also, if the question arises....let's say.....'what shall I have for dinner tonight'?....is that a question that could arise from the true-self? Or is that a false-self question? I'm interested in the precise line between true and false self, in terms of thought, intention, feeling, behavior.... I don't know if this can be explained in a couple of paragraphs to me, but if so....a couple would be good (I can get overwhelmed with bulky text) I've never given any attributes, directly, of true self/essence, so I have never explained before. I was never given any attributes, only told: You have to find your essence (if you wish to work). But, generally, essence is that which you were born with, or born as. You can learn a lot from that alone. So essence includes the body, and the centers themselves, the intellectual center, the emotional center, the instinctive and moving centers, they are separate, but usually grouped together. Animals are almost all instinctive, many can stand within minutes of being born. The false self is acquired, it consists of the contents of the centers (stored information). I've heard a lot around here, mind is nothing but the thoughts, no thought, no mind. But that makes zero sense. How do thoughts arise in the first place? Basically you can look at it like a computer, hardware and software. Can you have software without hardware? (Or at minimum to manifest thoughts). There isn't a precise line between the true self and the false self, they are all mixed and jumbled together. What's for dinner, what would I like, can come from either true self or false self. Most thoughts come from the false self, all negative emotions come from the false self. (This is where the neural model ZD found comes into play, concerning the mind, there are certain self-circuits. But learning some skills are just learning, not involving a personal aspect). There are things in common that all true self individuals have. Our uniqueness comes from essence/true self, so there are some qualities only-you are/possess. So we are a mixture of true self and false self. Maybe an analogy would be, take two different 1000 piece jigsaw puzzles and dump them together, mix them up. One 'box' is true self and one box is false self. That's where we start from. We begin with self-study. The ~interior~ work is not done with the mind, the intellectual center, it is too weak and feeble and stupid. Attention and awareness exist outside the mind, emotions/feelings and the instinctive center and the body-moving-center. The work is done with attention, more particularly voluntary attention, and awareness. That's what I started with. That's really the only way to start, nevertheless, the best way. I try not to deviate from the way I was taught. Just wanted to make a slight clarification. The false self is fragmented, like the jigsaw puzzle, essence/true self is not fragmented, is whole. Incidentally, my power is out. From experience that could be 4-5 hours. Could be longer as we are in the middle of a 2-4 inches of rain storm. Later |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 9, 2024 13:54:54 GMT -5
Thanks for making that a manageable read for me. More questions occur to me, but please only answer if this line of conversation is interesting and useful for you. I know we share views on the wounds and hurts that small children experience (Alice Miller...'The drama of being a child' was the first book my counsellor recommended to me. The second was a book by John Bradshaw.) So...many babies come out of the womb, crying and screaming. So when you say, 'essence is that which you are born with', do you mean that quite literally? Is the baby crying and screaming the 'true self/essence'? Or would that trauma/emotion be an aspect of what creates the false self? Yes, quite literally. ......There is a quote by Gurdjieff about the moment of birth, I'll try to find it, I think from Beelzebub's Tales. But what you describe could be both. I have this theory. I've had interest in autism for years. I've read accounts of people who were severely autistic, nonverbal, and then later learned to speak or learn to communicate by keyboard. They were a complete person, completely aware, understood language and what was going on, but they were 'locked inside themselves'. But they remember what it was like to have been locked inside themselves. It was curious, even then, I considered I might have been close to being autistic. I was incredibly shy and withdrawn, liked to be alone as long as I can remember. (I really understood sree, at least he made sense, I never told him that). I was basically a loner, still am. The Outsider by Colin Wilson was a significant book for me. Sidetracked. So it seemed to me people who were autistic hadn't formed a cultural self, they still lived wholly through essence/true self. I coined that term, it sums it up. The small s self is our means of communication with the outside world, an intermediary of sorts. So then I began to consider what happened. I thought maybe it started even from birth, and thought why? And then I thought maybe autism starts from a not-normal childbirth, maybe from cesarean births. Maybe it's necessary to be stressed in birth. I did a little 'googling', and as I recall it had been suggested as a theory. I just stopped there. Yes, I've read several books by Alice Walker. She explains beautifully how some famous people, public figures, got screwed up by their parents. Buster Keaton comes to mind. His parents were in Vaudeville, and he started as a baby, he was basically used as a prop, a living prop. He is famous for his deadpan look. He was coached in that as a baby. No matter what we do to you, you can't cry, you can't have any expression. He became a great creative director and actor. Alice Walker also describes the childhood of Adolph Hitler, very nasty, horrible. Relationships between parent and child are interesting. There has to be a right balance. Too easy on the kid, it can go bad, a spoiled brat. Too severe on the kid, it can go wrong, you can create a monster. I personally 'don't believe in spanking', punishment. I don't think hitting a kid does any good, there are other means of negative reinforcement. Everything that happens to a kid has a part in forming the false self. Thanks! I'll come back to this (and thanks for correcting Alice 'Walker'). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 9, 2024 14:03:21 GMT -5
Interesting! We drove through Idaho into Oregon, and stayed at an isolated town in west Oregon on Xmas day. It was a pleasingly quiet time, and I noted with interest some visible support for conservatives. I'm now in one of the grey central areas (on the map), and the vibe is different. Instinctively, I avoid resistance, and so I notice there seems to be a 'malleability' to my consciousness, that adapts to wherever I am. Within limit. The people I am house sitting for seem good people, but while they are away, I took the liberty of putting their BLM protest sign that usually sits outside the front door, into the garage  Missoula was a city that seemed to suit my consciousness quite well. Conservative at heart, but the college brings a younger more progressive vibe to it, which altogether, I found balancing. As a relative 'outsider', I'd be curious about why you think there is so much hatred exhibited between Americans these days, and is growing. It's an interesting phenomenon, as it has been there below the surface for a long long time. It is manifesting as a political pimple, of course, but there's more to it below it. You've seen a lot more of the States than most Americans, and could have an interesting perspective. TIA Thanks for asking, I thought about this for about half an hour before replying. Please bear in mind I have to generalize somewhat in a short reply, and I am conscious of my own biases. Also, the comments that others made about internet are valid. I think the battle here is similar to many other countries right now, just a bit more amplified here. In essence, it's a class struggle, but with the emphasis on culture, rather than economic. My experience of America as a whole is that the vast majority of the country (in terms of land mass) still values and wishes to preserve a fundamentally American way of life (conservative). But the smaller and densely packed areas want to 'update' America (progressive). I have sympathies in certain ways with both sides. In a sense, my mind lies with the progressives (e.g I believe capitalism is very flawed), but my heart with the conservatives....and my heart is stronger. As I'm sure you know, much of America is still working class. People physically work hard here, often 2 or 3 jobs just to pay rent and eat (which I find quite astonishing really....many in the UK struggle, but generally one job is sufficient for the absolute basics). They are Christian leaning, Christian values, believe in pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, believe in the constitution, believe in their truck lol. They don't believe in 'society', they believe in the power of the individual, and they cherish their family and community. In the media, a picture has been painted of the American working classes as 'ignorant, racist, homophobic, regressive' which contains elements of truth, but this is broadly misrepresentative of what these folks are about, and of course, they feel like they are being misrepresented. Whereas the wealthier middle class progressives believe in 'society'. They often correctly and nobly see 'social injustices', but they have an abstract intellectual filter of 'society', which means that for all their talk of diversity, they don't accept the true nature of diversity. They wish to change what they don't like, and create a kind of 'capitalist equality utopia'. And whenever I've stayed in strong progressive areas, I've had a sense that they have little understanding, respect and even care, for the subjective lived experience of the working classes across the bulk of America. From within their bubble, they believe they are rescuing the working classes from their plight and their ignorance. And the working classes are like....'Just LEAVE me and my family the hell alone. You don't understand me. My life is tough but I'm tough and I like it that way!' So I think what we are seeing is a very old dynamic. Those that find life relatively easy (materially speaking) are a bit bored, grandiosely believe in their own life success, they want a problem to solve and someone to rescue, and believe strongly in the over-arching nature of the 'greater good'. Ironically, it's not wholly dissimilar from 100-200 years ago when white people were trying to convert indigenous people to Christianity in various parts of the world....not exactly 'progressive'. They see the working class as problematic, and think the working class should want to be saved from their struggle and their ignorance. But they don't. Quite the opposite. They really just want to be left alone to live their traditional American life. Work hard, enjoy their family, eat good steak, go to church occasionally. Pushed too far, I imagine the working class cultures would seek succession from the progressive areas/states...as Laffy said is happening in Oregan. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 9, 2024 14:05:09 GMT -5
Yes, quite literally. ......There is a quote by Gurdjieff about the moment of birth, I'll try to find it, I think from Beelzebub's Tales. But what you describe could be both. I have this theory. I've had interest in autism for years. I've read accounts of people who were severely autistic, nonverbal, and then later learned to speak or learn to communicate by keyboard. They were a complete person, completely aware, understood language and what was going on, but they were 'locked inside themselves'. But they remember what it was like to have been locked inside themselves. It was curious, even then, I considered I might have been close to being autistic. I was incredibly shy and withdrawn, liked to be alone as long as I can remember. (I really understood sree, at least he made sense, I never told him that). I was basically a loner, still am. The Outsider by Colin Wilson was a significant book for me. Sidetracked. So it seemed to me people who were autistic hadn't formed a cultural self, they still lived wholly through essence/true self. I coined that term, it sums it up. The small s self is our means of communication with the outside world, an intermediary of sorts. So then I began to consider what happened. I thought maybe it started even from birth, and thought why? And then I thought maybe autism starts from a not-normal childbirth, maybe from cesarean births. Maybe it's necessary to be stressed in birth. I did a little 'googling', and as I recall it had been suggested as a theory. I just stopped there. Yes, I've read several books by Alice Walker. She explains beautifully how some famous people, public figures, got screwed up by their parents. Buster Keaton comes to mind. His parents were in Vaudeville, and he started as a baby, he was basically used as a prop, a living prop. He is famous for his deadpan look. He was coached in that as a baby. No matter what we do to you, you can't cry, you can't have any expression. He became a great creative director and actor. Alice Walker also describes the childhood of Adolph Hitler, very nasty, horrible. Relationships between parent and child are interesting. There has to be a right balance. Too easy on the kid, it can go bad, a spoiled brat. Too severe on the kid, it can go wrong, you can create a monster. I personally 'don't believe in spanking', punishment. I don't think hitting a kid does any good, there are other means of negative reinforcement. Everything that happens to a kid has a part in forming the false self. Thanks! I'll come back to this (and thanks for correcting Alice 'Walker'). Whatever I wrote, it's Alice Miller. (I don't like working on the small screen). Wanted to add one more thing. The false self is formed actually as a means to protect the true self, as shield as it were, against the 'slings and arrows'. But somehow a flip flop occurs, we take the mask to be the self, the mask had formed as a kind of protective net. But then our sense of identity shifts from the true self to the false self. It's not so easy to shift back. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 9, 2024 14:09:01 GMT -5
Thanks! I'll come back to this (and thanks for correcting Alice 'Walker'). Whatever I wrote, it's Alice Miller. (I don't like working on the small screen). Wanted to add one more thing. The false self is formed actually as a means to protect the true self, as shield as it were, against the 'slings and arrows'. But somehow a flip flop occurs, we take the mask to be the self, it forms a kind of protective net. But then our sense of identity shifts from the true self to the false self. It's not so easy to shift back. Yep, that's very much my understanding too. (I'll get back to your other message). |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 9, 2024 14:37:46 GMT -5
Whatever I wrote, it's Alice Miller. (I don't like working on the small screen). Wanted to add one more thing. The false self is formed actually as a means to protect the true self, as shield as it were, against the 'slings and arrows'. But somehow a flip flop occurs, we take the mask to be the self, it forms a kind of protective net. But then our sense of identity shifts from the true self to the false self. It's not so easy to shift back. Yep, that's very much my understanding too. (I'll get back to your other message). FWIW, I've never understood why people think the false sense of self is a protective mechanism. From my POV, the sense of being a SVP is a natural result of highly social animals wanting to communicate with each other via language. Parents begin pointing to themselves and saying "mama" or "dada" and pointing to their child and saying "John" or "Jane" because they want to communicate, and as they teach the child to make more and more distinctions about the world, the child naturally assumes that reality is composed of separate things being observed by a separate "me." What we call "the True Self" doesn't need protecting, so, if anything, being conditioned to imagine that one is a SVP is more detrimental than protective. I understand that at this point in human evolution children are not told the truth because their parents don't know the truth, but there may come a point when ND will become common knowledge and children will be taught to differentiate between reality and the meta-reality created by abstract thought. I once experimented with ten-year-olds and they were able to make that differentiation quite easily once it was pointed out to them. As children grow older, it becomes more and more difficult for them to see and understand the difference, and that's because conventional habits of thought become so ingrained that they function like a filter that is hard to remove. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 9, 2024 14:55:45 GMT -5
Yep, that's very much my understanding too. (I'll get back to your other message). FWIW, I've never understood why people think the false sense of self is a protective mechanism. From my POV, the sense of being a SVP is a natural result of highly social animals wanting to communicate with each other via language. Parents begin pointing to themselves and saying "mama" or "dada" and pointing to their child and saying "John" or "Jane" because they want to communicate, and as they teach the child to make more and more distinctions about the world, the child naturally assumes that reality is composed of separate things being observed by a separate "me." What we call "the True Self" doesn't need protecting, so, if anything, being conditioned to imagine that one is a SVP is more detrimental than protective. I understand that at this point in human evolution children are not told the truth because their parents don't know the truth, but there may come a point when ND will become common knowledge and children will be taught to differentiate between reality and the meta-reality created by abstract thought. I once experimented with ten-year-olds and they were able to make that differentiation quite easily once it was pointed out to them. As children grow older, it becomes more and more difficult for them to see and understand the difference, and that's because conventional habits of thought become so ingrained that they function like a filter that is hard to remove. I'll try and come back to this later too, but for me, it's not quite so much that the ego develops to protect an inner 'true self' per se, it develops as a survival mechanism to protect the body. Explaining this very overly-simplistically... Because of parental unconsciousness (a result of their own emotional wounds and false beliefs), babies are loved conditionally, not unconditionally. For example, if a baby screams, it can trigger parental wounds, and the parents react (internally and externally) from their own fear. As a baby, and a young child, are utterly dependent on their parents for their basic needs (including love), the baby slowly learns that it is dangerous to cry, and shameful to cry. And the baby then develops an artificial self-image of itself to protect itself ('I am not someone that cries'). As I'm sure you know, until recently, males in particular were discouraged from allowing and expressing their feeling (except in very specific contexts). It wasn't considered 'manly'. If a baby could be fully accepted and unconditionally loved, it would still learn to use language, but it would learn this without the deeper fear and shame, and without the artificial self-image. Just as you use language without fear, shame and artificial self-image. Again, this is overly-simplistic, but we are having French toast for lunch, we have no eggs, so I have to get moving  (Lots of snow here today). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 9, 2024 16:03:16 GMT -5
FWIW, I've never understood why people think the false sense of self is a protective mechanism. From my POV, the sense of being a SVP is a natural result of highly social animals wanting to communicate with each other via language. Parents begin pointing to themselves and saying "mama" or "dada" and pointing to their child and saying "John" or "Jane" because they want to communicate, and as they teach the child to make more and more distinctions about the world, the child naturally assumes that reality is composed of separate things being observed by a separate "me." What we call "the True Self" doesn't need protecting, so, if anything, being conditioned to imagine that one is a SVP is more detrimental than protective. I understand that at this point in human evolution children are not told the truth because their parents don't know the truth, but there may come a point when ND will become common knowledge and children will be taught to differentiate between reality and the meta-reality created by abstract thought. I once experimented with ten-year-olds and they were able to make that differentiation quite easily once it was pointed out to them. As children grow older, it becomes more and more difficult for them to see and understand the difference, and that's because conventional habits of thought become so ingrained that they function like a filter that is hard to remove. I'll try and come back to this later too, but for me, it's not quite so much that the ego develops to protect an inner 'true self' per se, it develops as a survival mechanism to protect the body. Explaining this very overly-simplistically... Because of parental unconsciousness (a result of their own emotional wounds and false beliefs), babies are loved conditionally, not unconditionally. For example, if a baby screams, it can trigger parental wounds, and the parents react (internally and externally) from their own fear. As a baby, and a young child, are utterly dependent on their parents for their basic needs (including love), the baby slowly learns that it is dangerous to cry, and shameful to cry. And the baby then develops an artificial self-image of itself to protect itself ('I am not someone that cries'). As I'm sure you know, until recently, males in particular were discouraged from allowing and expressing their feeling (except in very specific contexts). It wasn't considered 'manly'. If a baby could be fully accepted and unconditionally loved, it would still learn to use language, but it would learn this without the deeper fear and shame, and without the artificial self-image. Just as you use language without fear, shame and artificial self-image. Again, this is overly-simplistic, but we are having French toast for lunch, we have no eggs, so I have to get moving (Lots of snow here today). Yes, exactly. The more severe the backlash, the harder the false self becomes (and thus the more separated from the true self). Kids who are beaten for no reason, can develop severe mental illness. Some are treated so harshly they develop split personality disorder, one personality cannot contain the pain. These can become psychotic killers, who usually start with killing small animals. Hurt people hurt people. Parents pass their wounds on to their children. ...to ZD, in our view the true self is indeed a child, so very vulnerable, very very vulnerable. The true self is the true individuation, not the Whole. Still no power here, not even a projected time of power back on (very unusual). Just checking in. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 9, 2024 17:13:11 GMT -5
I'll try and come back to this later too, but for me, it's not quite so much that the ego develops to protect an inner 'true self' per se, it develops as a survival mechanism to protect the body. Explaining this very overly-simplistically... Because of parental unconsciousness (a result of their own emotional wounds and false beliefs), babies are loved conditionally, not unconditionally. For example, if a baby screams, it can trigger parental wounds, and the parents react (internally and externally) from their own fear. As a baby, and a young child, are utterly dependent on their parents for their basic needs (including love), the baby slowly learns that it is dangerous to cry, and shameful to cry. And the baby then develops an artificial self-image of itself to protect itself ('I am not someone that cries'). As I'm sure you know, until recently, males in particular were discouraged from allowing and expressing their feeling (except in very specific contexts). It wasn't considered 'manly'. If a baby could be fully accepted and unconditionally loved, it would still learn to use language, but it would learn this without the deeper fear and shame, and without the artificial self-image. Just as you use language without fear, shame and artificial self-image. Again, this is overly-simplistic, but we are having French toast for lunch, we have no eggs, so I have to get moving (Lots of snow here today). Yes, exactly. The more severe the backlash, the harder the false self becomes (and thus the more separated from the true self). Kids who are beaten for no reason, can develop severe mental illness. Some are treated so harshly they develop split personality disorder, one personality cannot contain the pain. These can become psychotic killers, who usually start with killing small animals. Hurt people hurt people. Parents pass their wounds on to their children. ...to ZD, in our view the true self is indeed a child, so very vulnerable, very very vulnerable. The true self is the true individuation, not the Whole. Still no power here, not even a projected time of power back on (very unusual). Just checking in. Okay. For this character "True Self" is a synonym for THIS. I agree that some children experience extremely bad parenting, but from all the people I've known, that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Thinking about all of the people I've known fairly well, only 5% or less have experienced overt and serious abuse in childhood. Yes, parents pass along their own ideas and beliefs, and no parents are 100% ideal simply due to ignorance, but I can count the hard core abuse cases that I know about in single digits. When Jesus and other ND sages talk about "leaving selfhood behind and discovering one's True Self" I don't think that they're referring to anything other than THIS. For that reason I have no idea what you mean by "true self is equivalent to true individuation" but that may be some esoteric idea promoted by Gurdjieff. I doubt that many people think of the term "true self" in the same way, but perhaps I'm wrong, and if so, others can chime in accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 10, 2024 17:48:07 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. The more severe the backlash, the harder the false self becomes (and thus the more separated from the true self). Kids who are beaten for no reason, can develop severe mental illness. Some are treated so harshly they develop split personality disorder, one personality cannot contain the pain. These can become psychotic killers, who usually start with killing small animals. Hurt people hurt people. Parents pass their wounds on to their children. ...to ZD, in our view the true self is indeed a child, so very vulnerable, very very vulnerable. The true self is the true individuation, not the Whole. Still no power here, not even a projected time of power back on (very unusual). Just checking in. Okay. For this character "True Self" is a synonym for THIS, and THIS is not affected by anything. I agree that some children experience extremely bad parenting, but from all the people I've known, that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Thinking about all of the people I've known fairly well, only 5% or less have experienced overt and serious abuse in childhood. Yes, parents pass along their own ideas and beliefs, and no parents are 100% ideal simply due to ignorance, but I can count the hard core abuse cases that I know about in single digits. When Jesus and other ND sages talk about "leaving selfhood behind and discovering one's True Self" I don't think that they're referring to anything other than THIS. For that reason I have no idea what you mean by "true self is equivalent to true individuation" but that may be some esoteric idea promoted by Gurdjieff. I doubt that many people think of the term "true self" in the same way, but perhaps I'm wrong, and if so, others can chime in accordingly. I'm going to supply a relevant quote. Gurdjieff was capable of separating essence from personality (our terms, true self and false self used more generally) in his students. He did this, the reported account, as an experiment to demonstrate the differences between personality OtoH and from essence OTOH. It is not told how he did this, I would guess from either hypnosis or drugs. I've done a lot of studying and pondering on how this was possible. Some years ago I surmised that essence ~lives from~ the right hemisphere of the brain, personality the left hemisphere. Hearing Jill Bolte-Taylor's account of her stroke of insight pretty much sealed the deal, that I, so it seems, was correct. Sharon posted a video about Iain McGilchrist. I haven't looked at it yet but I know he has done extensive research on the brain hemispheres, I recognized his face. But this is an exceptionally interesting account about how we function. The hemispheres are connected by the corpus callosum, blended as it were, so we don't notice 'these two people' in us. We know these 'two exist-in-us' because of split brain research of the past, actually severing the corpus callosum in certain people with epilepsy (see Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga). This quoted account was in the 19teens, so the war discussed was WWI. Personality (the false self) was somehow "~anesthetized~"/put to sleep in both men. emphasis sdp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Conversations in groups continued as usual. Once Gurdjieff said that he wanted to carry out an experiment on the separation of personality from essence. We were all very interested because he had promised "experiments" for a long time but till then we had seen nothing. I will not describe his methods, I will merely describe the people whom he chose that first evening for the experiment. One was no longer young and was a man who occupied a fairly prominent position in society. At our meetings he spoke much and often about himself, his family, about Christianity, and about the events of the moment connected with the war and with all possible kinds of "scandal" that had very much disgusted him. The other was younger. Many of us did not consider him to be a serious person. Very often he played what is called the fool; or, on the other hand, entered into endless formal arguments about some or other details of the system without any relation whatever to the whole. It was very difficult to understand him. He spoke in a confused and intricate manner even of the most simple things, mixing up in a most impossible way different points of view and words belonging to different categories and levels. I pass over the beginning of the experiment. We were sitting in the big drawing room. The conversation went on as usual. "Now observe," Gurdjieff whispered to us.The older of the two who was speaking heatedly about something suddenly became silent in the middle of a sentence and seemed to sink into his chair looking straight in front of him. At a sign from Gurdjieff we continued to talk without looking at him. The younger one began to listen to the talk and then spoke himself. All of us looked at one another. His voice had become different. He told us some observations about himself in a clear, simple, and intelligible manner without superfluous words, without extravagances, and without buffoonery. Then he became silent; he smoked a cigarette and was obviously thinking of something. The first one sat still without moving, as though shrunken into a ball. "Ask him what he is thinking about," said Gurdjieff quietly."I?" He lifted his head as though waking up when he was questioned. "About nothing." He smiled weakly as though apologizing or as though he were surprised at anyone asking him what he was thinking about. "Well, you were talking about the war just now," said one of us, "about what would happen if we made peace with the Germans; do you still think as you did then?" "I don't know really," he said in an uncertain voice. "Did I say that?" "Yes, certainly, you just said that everyone was obliged to think about it, that no one had the right not to think about it, and that no one had the right to forget the war; everyone ought to have a definite opinion; yes or no—for or against the war." He listened as though he did not grasp what the questioner was saying. "Yes?" he said. "How odd. I do not remember anything about it." "But aren't you interested in it?" "No, it does not interest me at all." "Are you not thinking of the consequences of all that is now taking place, of the results for Russia, for the whole of civilization?" He shook his head as though with regret. "I do not understand what you are talking about," he said, "it does not interest me at all and I know nothing about it." "Well then, you spoke before of your family. Would it not be very much easier for you if they became interested in our ideas and joined the work?" "Yes, perhaps," again in an uncertain voice. "But why should I think about it?" "Well, you said you were afraid of the gulf, as you expressed it, which was growing between you and them." No reply. "But what do you think about it now?" "I am not thinking about it at all." "If you were asked what you would like, what would you say?"
Again a wondering glance—"I do not want anything."
"But think, what would you like?"On the small table beside him there stood an unfinished glass of tea. He gazed at it for a long time as though considering something. He glanced around him twice, then
again looked at the glass, and said in such a serious voice and with such serious
intonations that we all looked at one another:
"I think I should like some raspberry jam.""Why are you questioning him?" said a voice from the corner which we hardly recognized. This was the second "experiment." "Can you not see that he is asleep?"
"And you yourself?" asked one of us.
"I, on the contrary, have woken up."
"Why has he gone to sleep while you have woken up?"
"I do not know."With this the experiment ended. Neither of them remembered anything the next day. Gurdjieff explained to us that with the first man everything that constituted the subject of his ordinary conversation, of his alarms and agitation, was in personality. And when his personality was asleep practically nothing remained. In the personality of the other there was also a great deal of undue talkativeness but behind the personality there was an essence which knew as much as the personality and knew it better, and when personality went to sleep essence took its place to which it had a much greater right. "Note that contrary to his custom he spoke very little," said Gurdjieff "But he was observing all of you and everything that was taking place, and nothing escaped him." "But of what use is it to him if he also does not remember?" said one of us. "Essence remembers," said Gurdjieff, "personality has forgotten. And this was necessary because otherwise personality would have perverted everything and would have ascribed all this to itself." In Search of the Miraculous by PD Ouspensky pages 251-253 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's probably obvious why Gurdjieff picked these two people for his experiment, he knew what to expect. This also shows there is a difference in the way awakening is meant here, and what Gurdjieff meant. But awakening here was somehow induced, and temporary. ......... |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 10, 2024 18:53:38 GMT -5
I'm going to supply a relevant quote. Gurdjieff ... Good story! It sounds like hypnosis. Now, everyone reads into it only according to their own beliefs and level of evolvement. It doesn't even matter what Gurdjieff believed and intended to prove (that reflected his own beliefs and evolvement, his subjective truth). |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 11, 2024 8:30:53 GMT -5
As a relative 'outsider', I'd be curious about why you think there is so much hatred exhibited between Americans these days, and is growing. It's an interesting phenomenon, as it has been there below the surface for a long long time. It is manifesting as a political pimple, of course, but there's more to it below it. You've seen a lot more of the States than most Americans, and could have an interesting perspective. TIA Thanks for asking, I thought about this for about half an hour before replying. Please bear in mind I have to generalize somewhat in a short reply, and I am conscious of my own biases. Also, the comments that others made about internet are valid. I think the battle here is similar to many other countries right now, just a bit more amplified here. In essence, it's a class struggle, but with the emphasis on culture, rather than economic. My experience of America as a whole is that the vast majority of the country (in terms of land mass) still values and wishes to preserve a fundamentally American way of life (conservative). But the smaller and densely packed areas want to 'update' America (progressive). I have sympathies in certain ways with both sides. In a sense, my mind lies with the progressives (e.g I believe capitalism is very flawed), but my heart with the conservatives....and my heart is stronger. As I'm sure you know, much of America is still working class. People physically work hard here, often 2 or 3 jobs just to pay rent and eat (which I find quite astonishing really....many in the UK struggle, but generally one job is sufficient for the absolute basics). They are Christian leaning, Christian values, believe in pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, believe in the constitution, believe in their truck lol. They don't believe in 'society', they believe in the power of the individual, and they cherish their family and community. In the media, a picture has been painted of the American working classes as 'ignorant, racist, homophobic, regressive' which contains elements of truth, but this is broadly misrepresentative of what these folks are about, and of course, they feel like they are being misrepresented. Whereas the wealthier middle class progressives believe in 'society'. They often correctly and nobly see 'social injustices', but they have an abstract intellectual filter of 'society', which means that for all their talk of diversity, they don't accept the true nature of diversity. They wish to change what they don't like, and create a kind of 'capitalist equality utopia'. And whenever I've stayed in strong progressive areas, I've had a sense that they have little understanding, respect and even care, for the subjective lived experience of the working classes across the bulk of America. From within their bubble, they believe they are rescuing the working classes from their plight and their ignorance. And the working classes are like....'Just LEAVE me and my family the hell alone. You don't understand me. My life is tough but I'm tough and I like it that way!' So I think what we are seeing is a very old dynamic. Those that find life relatively easy (materially speaking) are a bit bored, grandiosely believe in their own life success, they want a problem to solve and someone to rescue, and believe strongly in the over-arching nature of the 'greater good'. Ironically, it's not wholly dissimilar from 100-200 years ago when white people were trying to convert indigenous people to Christianity in various parts of the world....not exactly 'progressive'. They see the working class as problematic, and think the working class should want to be saved from their struggle and their ignorance. But they don't. Quite the opposite. They really just want to be left alone to live their traditional American life. Work hard, enjoy their family, eat good steak, go to church occasionally. Pushed too far, I imagine the working class cultures would seek succession from the progressive areas/states...as Laffy said is happening in Oregan. Wow, thank you for taking the time to offer your outsider perspective. I think it does well to highlight some of the socio-culturo-political waves that seem to be at play. It sounds a bit like you are sensitive to the class warfare that has been an ongoing dealio in British culture, but may also appreciate the extra dose of individualism that the US has to offer. Does that sound about right? Recently, in the last few years, I've been approaching it from the perspective of the ancient myth of Narcissus and/or some of the more interesting dialogues that have taken place here in our cyber sanatorium over the last 10-15 years being that it can be something of a microcosm of a society (if that makes sense). Of course, self-image plays the major role in the extent to which a person is found along the continuum of narcissism, and it often relates to how conscious a person may be. As we've noted, oftentimes people like to think they are very conscious, but when they realize just how seduced they have been by their own story, it can be rather revealing, and all kinds of reactions can ensue on the continuum between 'good' and 'bad'. As I'm not sure if you or others have taken a look at the myth or its associated Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), I'm not sure how much to go into it here, but I'll leave a few copy-n-pasted Q&As to see if you or anyone else is interested in the discussion. To be clear, I see these narcissistic traits at play in most every person in every society, no matter their social or economic status, political affiliation, religious or spiritual affiliation, etc. The Myth of Narcissus (In short) In both Ovid's and Pausanias' versions of Narcissus, Narcissus dies by a pool gazing at his own reflection that he falls in love with. He has no concern about anything around him nor does he eat or sleep. He takes his last dying breath by himself and dies by the image that he will never have but so badly desires. Does a narcissist recognize other narcissists?Narcissists can sometimes detect other narcissists, as they may recognize familiar traits and behaviors in each other. However, their reaction to one another can vary. It's possible for them to form alliances based on mutual self-interest, or they may engage in power struggles and competition. Can a narcissist get along with another narcissist?A recent study has shown that narcissists are more likely to stay in relationships with other narcissists than any other type of person. This is because they tend to have similar values and beliefs, which makes them feel closer together. Do narcissists look up to other narcissists?Modern-day narcissists do not believe that they are in fact “narcissists”, because let's face it, the word has a well-deserved negative connotation behind it. Yet narcissists (anywhere on the spectrum) rarely, if ever, have a problem with narcissistic behavior. In fact, narcissists absolutely admire other narcissists. Do narcissists gravitate to other narcissists?Yes. The similarities between two narcissists can make them feel attracted to each other. They may find solace in being with someone who has the same value system as them. The expectations from a relationship are different between narcissistic and non-narcissistic people. Why are narcissists so heartless?Narcissists are often seen as heartless because they lack empathy and compassion for others. They are more concerned with their own needs and wants than with the needs and feelings of others. They may also be manipulative and controlling, and they often use people to get what they want. Why do narcissists act like they hate you?While they may be content with people liking you, they become intolerant if others start favoring you over them, especially in situations where you share a close bond, such as being a couple or business partners. Their lack of self-esteem and fear of being replaced can trigger intense jealousy and resentment. What happens when a narcissist loses control?The outrage a narcissist may experience when they feel they no longer have control over you may spark a furious outburst. They attempt to reestablish their control through aggression and force. In short, there's a strong disconnection both within and with others, perhaps especially in more individualistic (not necessarily only) societies. Is it that these societies, such as the one playing out now (at least here in the US), may overly value 'individualism' at the expense of collective values and/or ideals? If so, it does seem that tools for 'connecting' with others, like the Internet, could very well be the same tools that atomize society and/or lead to unhealthier senses of relationship, as others are sought that will (at least temporarily) help uphold one's desired sense of self. Interestingly, it plays out that one's seeking of self-validation is one towards disintegration; whereas, one's seeking of SELF necessarily involves the transcendence (perhaps utter collapse) of the self. I mean, if that's actually what they are seeking. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 12, 2024 0:48:00 GMT -5
Thanks for asking, I thought about this for about half an hour before replying. Please bear in mind I have to generalize somewhat in a short reply, and I am conscious of my own biases. Also, the comments that others made about internet are valid. I think the battle here is similar to many other countries right now, just a bit more amplified here. In essence, it's a class struggle, but with the emphasis on culture, rather than economic. My experience of America as a whole is that the vast majority of the country (in terms of land mass) still values and wishes to preserve a fundamentally American way of life (conservative). But the smaller and densely packed areas want to 'update' America (progressive). I have sympathies in certain ways with both sides. In a sense, my mind lies with the progressives (e.g I believe capitalism is very flawed), but my heart with the conservatives....and my heart is stronger. As I'm sure you know, much of America is still working class. People physically work hard here, often 2 or 3 jobs just to pay rent and eat (which I find quite astonishing really....many in the UK struggle, but generally one job is sufficient for the absolute basics). They are Christian leaning, Christian values, believe in pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, believe in the constitution, believe in their truck lol. They don't believe in 'society', they believe in the power of the individual, and they cherish their family and community. In the media, a picture has been painted of the American working classes as 'ignorant, racist, homophobic, regressive' which contains elements of truth, but this is broadly misrepresentative of what these folks are about, and of course, they feel like they are being misrepresented. Whereas the wealthier middle class progressives believe in 'society'. They often correctly and nobly see 'social injustices', but they have an abstract intellectual filter of 'society', which means that for all their talk of diversity, they don't accept the true nature of diversity. They wish to change what they don't like, and create a kind of 'capitalist equality utopia'. And whenever I've stayed in strong progressive areas, I've had a sense that they have little understanding, respect and even care, for the subjective lived experience of the working classes across the bulk of America. From within their bubble, they believe they are rescuing the working classes from their plight and their ignorance. And the working classes are like....'Just LEAVE me and my family the hell alone. You don't understand me. My life is tough but I'm tough and I like it that way!' So I think what we are seeing is a very old dynamic. Those that find life relatively easy (materially speaking) are a bit bored, grandiosely believe in their own life success, they want a problem to solve and someone to rescue, and believe strongly in the over-arching nature of the 'greater good'. Ironically, it's not wholly dissimilar from 100-200 years ago when white people were trying to convert indigenous people to Christianity in various parts of the world....not exactly 'progressive'. They see the working class as problematic, and think the working class should want to be saved from their struggle and their ignorance. But they don't. Quite the opposite. They really just want to be left alone to live their traditional American life. Work hard, enjoy their family, eat good steak, go to church occasionally. Pushed too far, I imagine the working class cultures would seek succession from the progressive areas/states...as Laffy said is happening in Oregan. Wow, thank you for taking the time to offer your outsider perspective. I think it does well to highlight some of the socio-culturo-political waves that seem to be at play. It sounds a bit like you are sensitive to the class warfare that has been an ongoing dealio in British culture, but may also appreciate the extra dose of individualism that the US has to offer. Does that sound about right? Recently, in the last few years, I've been approaching it from the perspective of the ancient myth of Narcissus and/or some of the more interesting dialogues that have taken place here in our cyber sanatorium over the last 10-15 years being that it can be something of a microcosm of a society (if that makes sense). Of course, self-image plays the major role in the extent to which a person is found along the continuum of narcissism, and it often relates to how conscious a person may be. As we've noted, oftentimes people like to think they are very conscious, but when they realize just how seduced they have been by their own story, it can be rather revealing, and all kinds of reactions can ensue on the continuum between 'good' and 'bad'. As I'm not sure if you or others have taken a look at the myth or its associated Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), I'm not sure how much to go into it here, but I'll leave a few copy-n-pasted Q&As to see if you or anyone else is interested in the discussion. To be clear, I see these narcissistic traits at play in most every person in every society, no matter their social or economic status, political affiliation, religious or spiritual affiliation, etc. The Myth of Narcissus (In short) In both Ovid's and Pausanias' versions of Narcissus, Narcissus dies by a pool gazing at his own reflection that he falls in love with. He has no concern about anything around him nor does he eat or sleep. He takes his last dying breath by himself and dies by the image that he will never have but so badly desires. Does a narcissist recognize other narcissists?Narcissists can sometimes detect other narcissists, as they may recognize familiar traits and behaviors in each other. However, their reaction to one another can vary. It's possible for them to form alliances based on mutual self-interest, or they may engage in power struggles and competition. Can a narcissist get along with another narcissist?A recent study has shown that narcissists are more likely to stay in relationships with other narcissists than any other type of person. This is because they tend to have similar values and beliefs, which makes them feel closer together. Do narcissists look up to other narcissists?Modern-day narcissists do not believe that they are in fact “narcissists”, because let's face it, the word has a well-deserved negative connotation behind it. Yet narcissists (anywhere on the spectrum) rarely, if ever, have a problem with narcissistic behavior. In fact, narcissists absolutely admire other narcissists. Do narcissists gravitate to other narcissists?Yes. The similarities between two narcissists can make them feel attracted to each other. They may find solace in being with someone who has the same value system as them. The expectations from a relationship are different between narcissistic and non-narcissistic people. Why are narcissists so heartless?Narcissists are often seen as heartless because they lack empathy and compassion for others. They are more concerned with their own needs and wants than with the needs and feelings of others. They may also be manipulative and controlling, and they often use people to get what they want. Why do narcissists act like they hate you?While they may be content with people liking you, they become intolerant if others start favoring you over them, especially in situations where you share a close bond, such as being a couple or business partners. Their lack of self-esteem and fear of being replaced can trigger intense jealousy and resentment. What happens when a narcissist loses control?The outrage a narcissist may experience when they feel they no longer have control over you may spark a furious outburst. They attempt to reestablish their control through aggression and force. In short, there's a strong disconnection both within and with others, perhaps especially in more individualistic (not necessarily only) societies. Is it that these societies, such as the one playing out now (at least here in the US), may overly value 'individualism' at the expense of collective values and/or ideals? If so, it does seem that tools for 'connecting' with others, like the Internet, could very well be the same tools that atomize society and/or lead to unhealthier senses of relationship, as others are sought that will (at least temporarily) help uphold one's desired sense of self. Interestingly, it plays out that one's seeking of self-validation is one towards disintegration; whereas, one's seeking of SELF necessarily involves the transcendence (perhaps utter collapse) of the self. I mean, if that's actually what they are seeking. Some great insight here, and narcissism is a subject that has held interest for me. I might come back to it, but I'm not in a chatty mood right now |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 12, 2024 0:51:24 GMT -5
I'll try and come back to this later too, but for me, it's not quite so much that the ego develops to protect an inner 'true self' per se, it develops as a survival mechanism to protect the body. Explaining this very overly-simplistically... Because of parental unconsciousness (a result of their own emotional wounds and false beliefs), babies are loved conditionally, not unconditionally. For example, if a baby screams, it can trigger parental wounds, and the parents react (internally and externally) from their own fear. As a baby, and a young child, are utterly dependent on their parents for their basic needs (including love), the baby slowly learns that it is dangerous to cry, and shameful to cry. And the baby then develops an artificial self-image of itself to protect itself ('I am not someone that cries'). As I'm sure you know, until recently, males in particular were discouraged from allowing and expressing their feeling (except in very specific contexts). It wasn't considered 'manly'. If a baby could be fully accepted and unconditionally loved, it would still learn to use language, but it would learn this without the deeper fear and shame, and without the artificial self-image. Just as you use language without fear, shame and artificial self-image. Again, this is overly-simplistic, but we are having French toast for lunch, we have no eggs, so I have to get moving (Lots of snow here today). Yes, exactly. The more severe the backlash, the harder the false self becomes (and thus the more separated from the true self). Kids who are beaten for no reason, can develop severe mental illness. Some are treated so harshly they develop split personality disorder, one personality cannot contain the pain. These can become psychotic killers, who usually start with killing small animals. Hurt people hurt people. Parents pass their wounds on to their children. ...to ZD, in our view the true self is indeed a child, so very vulnerable, very very vulnerable. The true self is the true individuation, not the Whole. Still no power here, not even a projected time of power back on (very unusual). Just checking in. Yes...'true individuation'...that works for me. In an imaginary 'perfect world' of 'true individuations', what would individuations think and feel? What would their experience be of themselves? How would they behave? To be clear, I'm not suggesting you want that world, I'm asking to get a clear idea of what you see as your potential as an individuation. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 12, 2024 3:05:05 GMT -5
... Recently, in the last few years, I've been approaching it from the perspective of the ancient myth of Narcissus and/or some of the more interesting dialogues that have taken place here in our cyber sanatorium over the last 10-15 years being that it can be something of a microcosm of a society (if that makes sense). Of course, self-image plays the major role in the extent to which a person is found along the continuum of narcissism, and it often relates to how conscious a person may be. As we've noted, oftentimes people like to think they are very conscious, but when they realize just how seduced they have been by their own story, it can be rather revealing, and all kinds of reactions can ensue on the continuum between 'good' and 'bad'. As I'm not sure if you or others have taken a look at the myth or its associated Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), I'm not sure how much to go into it here, but I'll leave a few copy-n-pasted Q&As to see if you or anyone else is interested in the discussion. To be clear, I see these narcissistic traits at play in most every person in every society, no matter their social or economic status, political affiliation, religious or spiritual affiliation, etc. The Myth of Narcissus (In short) In both Ovid's and Pausanias' versions of Narcissus, Narcissus dies by a pool gazing at his own reflection that he falls in love with. He has no concern about anything around him nor does he eat or sleep. He takes his last dying breath by himself and dies by the image that he will never have but so badly desires. ...This is a video that I recall defining well the medical meaning of the terms narcissist, psychopath, sociopath. It could be a basis of discussion. Or you can suggest another source for the definition of the word "narcissist". |
|
