Lying, Lies and Liars

[Fester]

Re: How to defend a lie.

In learning to be honest with myself I realize too it is better not to lie but to know who you can tell truth to and who you can't....

Very true. Also known as "strategic enclosure".

hi
came to this thread to ask a question, and I think the above quote relates to it. Brief background to the question: I agree with Torpid's original commentary on liars, as I was such an accomplished liar by 15 or so that no-one believed me as a rule, 'cos everyone knew how good a liar I was! Hence, my first lesson in why not to lie. However, my honesty and sincerity cause problems at times, which I have tried to ignore assuming that one must ALWAYS speak truth if one is to ever find Truth. So I was a little startled to read the following in this essay: http://cassiopaea.org/2012/07/05/living-in-truth/ quoting Gurdjieff from "Life is Real Only Then, When ‘I Am’":

Of course, be sincere only here in this group, and in questions concerning the common aim.

Sincerity with everyone in general is weakness, slavery, and even a sign of hysteria.

Although the normal man must be able to be sincere, yet he must also know when, where, and for what purpose it is necessary to be sincere.

Is the suggestion that it is necessary to lie to STS oriented persons in order to not be controlled by them? Or more prosaic things, like job interviews? Or to a policy enforcer/police officer?

This statement has kinda thrown me... can someone please explain what this may mean? I'm drawing a blank... I wanna be a REAL boy!

shoulda finished the article first... Is the implication that we should just not discuss the work with those that don't get it?
"Many of our most profound lessons come through our experiences of learning to defend ourselves in ways that are creative, defending ourselves as a consequence of defending the truth. Because our concern is for the truth, not our own well-being, we are able to tap into a creative source that is unavailable to the psychopath. This, in turn, permits us to come up with ideas that leave the psychopath defenseless, and that, in turn, serve as an effective self-defense. But always as a consequence of working to defend the truth."
Or is this suggesting to be "creative" with the truth so as to lead the (potential) psychopath up the garden path, so to speak?
I think I may understand this viscerally, but not quite well enough to verbalise the idea :/

 

[Tigersoap]

Re: How to defend a lie.

Is the suggestion that it is necessary to lie to STS oriented persons in order to not be controlled by them? Or more
prosaic things, like job interviews? Or to a policy enforcer/police officer?

The way I understand it, is that yes you might have to hide the truth in certain occasions and practice strategic enclosure for your sake and those of the others around you.

This might help you understand it as well : The third force

Being honest and truthful in every occasions is as mechanical as lying all the time.

[quote author=Fester]shoulda finished the article first... Is the implication that we should just not discuss the work with those that don't get it?[/quote]

Again it's all about learning strategic enclosure and be externally considerate of those around you.

Otherwise you might get into hot waters because you're discussing subjects that most people don't want to hear about and they would feel threatened by your words with all the complications it might lead to.

[quote author=Fester]Or is this suggesting to be "creative" with the truth so as to lead the (potential) psychopath up the garden path, so to speak?[/quote]

I am not sure I understand this correctly but I will try nonetheless, perhaps it has nothing to do with distorting the truth to drive away a psychopath but by finding ways to let the truth out strategically it will sap the energy out of a psychopath who is feeding on those lies, rendering him powerless and protecting you from further attacks.
Others will surely explain this better than I did.

Hope it helps.

 

[Fester]

Thanks Tigersoap, those links to cassiopedia were very helpful (not to mention that I had no idea that there was a cassiopedia :P)

As i said, I have a visceral understanding of the concept, just needed to verify and test my comprehension- it was what I thought just much clearer.

I am not sure I understand this correctly but I will try nonetheless, perhaps it has nothing to do with distorting the truth to drive away a psychopath but by finding ways to let the truth out strategically it will sap the energy out of a psychopath who is feeding on those lies, rendering him powerless and protecting you from further attacks.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, just wasn't grasping it well enough to put it as well as you did.

Thanks :)

 

[salinafaerie]

Re: How to defend a lie.

Being honest and truthful in every occasions is as mechanical as lying all the time.

Will you explain this further please, Mrs. Tigersoap, with some examples?

Thank you.

 

[Tigersoap]

Re: How to defend a lie.

Will you explain this further please, Mrs. Tigersoap, with some examples?

The example given in the Third force entry on Cassiopedia is very relevant imho :

From "Jupiter, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and the Return of the Mongols" by Laura Knight-Jadczyk:


`There are those who think that truth or lies are always static, that a lie is a lie is a lie and that to be "good," one must ALWAYS tell the "truth." However, it is not always that easy. For example, consider France during the Nazi occupation. Undoubtedly, many of those involved in the resistance lied daily and regularly about their plans and activities. What was different about their lies was the INTENT and the SPECIFIC SITUATION. In such a situation, speaking the truth to a Nazi soldier who would use that truth to destroy one's fellow resistance fighters would be "evil," so to say, and lying would be "good." The greater truth that the lie served was Freedom from Tyranny. The "observer" of the situation knew the objective truth that revealing his plans or betraying his brothers would bring their deaths. The reality of the Nazis was based on subjective lies, and by responding to these lies leading to tyranny with an opposite lie that led to freedom was then an effective canceling of the subjectivity leaving the field clear for objectivity. This simple example ought to give the reader much to think about in terms of the socialized belief in a "black and white" exposition of "truth or lies" and "good and evil".'

I think the most important part is the intent & specific situation but it's not easy to put into practice.

As for an example, uhm, I used to think that by being truthful without taking into account the specific situation or the person in front of me, I would just say things as I thought them to be : "oh listen, you're my boss but I don't care about this job, so why are you angry about ?" or "Your music sucks, change it" & "I don't eat meat, please feed me anyway".

Basically I thought I was truthful but I was just being very rude and not externally considerate and thus I was making my life miserable while thinking that I was true to myself and surprise "oh poor me" did not always get a positive reaction to my "truthfulness".

To me I wanted to say "the truth" no matter what, in a mechanical way without thinking at all, even though my truth was already a lie in itself, not working on myself, not seeing reality as it is but as I wanted it to be. A regular narcissistic wounded individual osit.

I don't know if it helps though.

 

[salinafaerie]

Re: How to defend a lie.

The example given in the Third force entry on Cassiopedia is very relevant imho :

From "Jupiter, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and the Return of the Mongols" by Laura Knight-Jadczyk:


`There are those who think that truth or lies are always static, that a lie is a lie is a lie and that to be "good," one must ALWAYS tell the "truth." However, it is not always that easy. For example, consider France during the Nazi occupation. Undoubtedly, many of those involved in the resistance lied daily and regularly about their plans and activities. What was different about their lies was the INTENT and the SPECIFIC SITUATION. In such a situation, speaking the truth to a Nazi soldier who would use that truth to destroy one's fellow resistance fighters would be "evil," so to say, and lying would be "good." The greater truth that the lie served was Freedom from Tyranny. The "observer" of the situation knew the objective truth that revealing his plans or betraying his brothers would bring their deaths. The reality of the Nazis was based on subjective lies, and by responding to these lies leading to tyranny with an opposite lie that led to freedom was then an effective canceling of the subjectivity leaving the field clear for objectivity. This simple example ought to give the reader much to think about in terms of the socialized belief in a "black and white" exposition of "truth or lies" and "good and evil".'

I think the most important part is the intent & specific situation but it's not easy to put into practice.

As for an example, uhm, I used to think that by being truthful without taking into account the specific situation or the person in front of me, I would just say things as I thought them to be : "oh listen, you're my boss but I don't care about this job, so why are you angry about ?" or "Your music sucks, change it" & "I don't eat meat, please feed me anyway".

Basically I thought I was truthful but I was just being very rude and not externally considerate and thus I was making my life miserable while thinking that I was true to myself and surprise "oh poor me" did not always get a positive reaction to my "truthfulness".

To me I wanted to say "the truth" no matter what, in a mechanical way without thinking at all, even though my truth was already a lie in itself, not working on myself, not seeing reality as it is but as I wanted it to be. A regular narcissistic wounded individual osit.

I don't know if it helps though.

This helps a lot, especially your specific examples but, of course, the Nazi examples are powerful, too.

Can you explain even further what you mean "even though my truth was already a lie in itself"? You are saying because you hadn't worked on yourself, your perceptions of the truth weren't objective/the truth, right? But sometimes people who haven't worked on themselves can still manage to squeak out some truth, can they not?

On a side, I heard or read somewhere that the truth is simple, that it doesn't require long explanations. I have not found that to be true in my experience however.

 

[Cosmos]

Being honest and truthful in every occasions is as mechanical as lying all the time.

Will you explain this further please, Mrs. Tigersoap, with some examples?

Thank you.

If you look at the link Tigersoap provided, you can read:

Third Force

In the spirit of a duality defined by STO/STS, Creation/Entropy, Ascending/Descending, B-influence/A-influence, etc, one has a decision to make in every given moment. The choice one makes in this decision aligns one with either the Creative principle or Entropic principle. The Third Force is the configuration of circumstances, structures, and characters in that given moment that define the alignment of the choices one has. Truly one of the most dangerous occult truths, the Third Force implies that no moral dogma is comprehensive enough to inform one involved in The Work on how to act in alignment with the Creative principle in every possible situation. This idea is closely related to the principle of "perspicacity", which is the discernment of what the Third Force can reveal about the nature of the choices in that given moment.


From "Jupiter, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and the Return of the Mongols" by Laura Knight-Jadczyk:


`There are those who think that truth or lies are always static, that a lie is a lie is a lie and that to be "good," one must ALWAYS tell the "truth." However, it is not always that easy. For example, consider France during the Nazi occupation. Undoubtedly, many of those involved in the resistance lied daily and regularly about their plans and activities. What was different about their lies was the INTENT and the SPECIFIC SITUATION. In such a situation, speaking the truth to a Nazi soldier who would use that truth to destroy one's fellow resistance fighters would be "evil," so to say, and lying would be "good." The greater truth that the lie served was Freedom from Tyranny. The "observer" of the situation knew the objective truth that revealing his plans or betraying his brothers would bring their deaths. The reality of the Nazis was based on subjective lies, and by responding to these lies leading to tyranny with an opposite lie that led to freedom was then an effective canceling of the subjectivity leaving the field clear for objectivity. This simple example ought to give the reader much to think about in terms of the socialized belief in a "black and white" exposition of "truth or lies" and "good and evil".'

And here (http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=894) you can read about lies and lying, the following:

Lies and Lying

Lies are ubiquitous in both man's inner and outer life. Any work aspiring towards truth needs to deal with this state of matters. To begin to sort this out, we must distinguish between various forms of lying. The below draws on Mouravieff's discussion of lying in the Gnosis series.

Lies can be classified in the following categories:

Necessary lies - There are situations where lying Is essential to survival or to capacity to function. Peter's denying of Jesus is an archetypal example of this.

Useful lies - Disinformation and various misrepresentation are common in politics, business, advertising and so forth. These are often not direct demonstrable falsehoods but rather spins put on events. These, as well as various withholding of information, scheming and so forth are done for gain and essentially to serve the self at the expense of another. Functioning in the world requires one at least to be aware of this. Such actions are in principle antithetical to STO-oriented esoteric development, yet the seeker may be forced to have recourse to secrecy or disinforming either in professional life or in order to be able to maintain his quest in a world which is for the most part hostile to such endeavors.

Useless lies - People sometimes lie out of habit, give false impressions in order to please or be socially accepted, exaggerate their accomplishments and hide their failings, all in the context of regular small talk. Such lying is not necessary nor is it useful and it generally only serves to dissipate energy and subtly increase subjectivity.

White lies - Lying can sometimes be motivated by noble motives such as concern for others. This is the case for example when telling a sick person that the sickness not be fatal when in fact it is. Mouravieff compares this to attempting to perform a miracle with insufficient means. The word does not change the world.

Lies to self - Of all forms of lying, lies to self are esoterically the most harmful. This is the only form of lying which is never justified. One effect of lying to self is increasing the factionalization of little I's, where one little I misleads another, thus going directly contrary to the goal of forging an internal unity. Another effect of lying to self, specially if the lie to self is believed by a large faction of little I's, is weakening one's faculty of discernment. Habitual lying to self promotes sleep and introduces internal noise conflicting with the signals from those parts of self which do not believe the lie to self. Deliberately lying to others is less destructive to integrity than lying to self, specially if the latter lie is believed and absorbed into the self.

There are various psychological techniques of influencing the self, such as NLP (neurolinguistic programming) and diverse techniques of suggestion and hypnosis. These can certainly be used for lying to the self but are not limited to this. Widespread use of these methods does run the risk of simply constructing more internal fantasies about the self, which is ultimately harmful. At the very least, one should know what effect one attempts to create and why.

Gurdjieff says concerning lying that in most circumstances, man lies or tells the truth mechanically, simply because he cannot do otherwise. Only when there is a measure of non-mechanical being and intentionality does lying or telling the truth become significant. Moral or ethical considerations do not apply to machines. One must have a degree of mastery over the self in order to make choices concerning honesty. All is predicated on the circumstance and the level of being of the participants. Within the Work, honesty is required; in the outside world, compulsive honesty can even be a form of hysteria and lead to all manner of trouble.

The question of truth and lies relates to entropy and creation through the fact that lying always introduces confusion and disorder into the system of the world. In a world that is based on lies and half-truths playing along with this is to a degree necessary. Lying generally introduces added separation between the one who lies and the one to whom one lies. As an internal phenomenon this is contrary to the Work. As an outside interaction, separating one's inner life from another by lies can be vital.

Lies are a form of power over others. In terms of the STO/STS dynamic, lies are a tool of service to self. Lies are aligned with the principle of entropy simply because the more lies the world contains, the less organized and fragmented it becomes and the more energy is expended in maintaining all this complexity. This ties up energy which otherwise could be expressed creatively. This is true within the individual as well as at the societal scale,.

A lie can be seen as an indirect request for truth. In a situation of confrontation where lies are used as instruments, the defense consistent with the STO orientation is confronting the lies and spin with truth. Lies and their promoters can often be recognized by the fact that they tend to shift in response to circumstance and become entangled in their own contradictions while truth remains stable.

So lying as well as honesty and dishonesty can be used for both, for STS (mechanical) direction or STO direction.
It depends on the given situation, if a lie, dishonesty or honesty are "good" (STO) or "bad" (STS).

So being truthful or honest can be as mechanical as lying to the self, given the specific situation and how one is dealing with it.

Gurdjieff onces painted ordinary birds with paint, in order to give them the look of expensive canary birds. He then sold them as canary birds, to rich people. (I think this story was ISOTM, but I'm not sure).

Now, that action could be interpreted as dishonesty or lying with a entropic intent, but Gurdjieff did this with a higher good in mind, respectively the indemnity that his work can and must continue in order that other people can continue to learn from it, in the future.

 

[Cosmos]

The example given in the Third force entry on Cassiopedia is very relevant imho :

From "Jupiter, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and the Return of the Mongols" by Laura Knight-Jadczyk:


`There are those who think that truth or lies are always static, that a lie is a lie is a lie and that to be "good," one must ALWAYS tell the "truth." However, it is not always that easy. For example, consider France during the Nazi occupation. Undoubtedly, many of those involved in the resistance lied daily and regularly about their plans and activities. What was different about their lies was the INTENT and the SPECIFIC SITUATION. In such a situation, speaking the truth to a Nazi soldier who would use that truth to destroy one's fellow resistance fighters would be "evil," so to say, and lying would be "good." The greater truth that the lie served was Freedom from Tyranny. The "observer" of the situation knew the objective truth that revealing his plans or betraying his brothers would bring their deaths. The reality of the Nazis was based on subjective lies, and by responding to these lies leading to tyranny with an opposite lie that led to freedom was then an effective canceling of the subjectivity leaving the field clear for objectivity. This simple example ought to give the reader much to think about in terms of the socialized belief in a "black and white" exposition of "truth or lies" and "good and evil".'

I think the most important part is the intent & specific situation but it's not easy to put into practice.

As for an example, uhm, I used to think that by being truthful without taking into account the specific situation or the person in front of me, I would just say things as I thought them to be : "oh listen, you're my boss but I don't care about this job, so why are you angry about ?" or "Your music sucks, change it" & "I don't eat meat, please feed me anyway".

Basically I thought I was truthful but I was just being very rude and not externally considerate and thus I was making my life miserable while thinking that I was true to myself and surprise "oh poor me" did not always get a positive reaction to my "truthfulness".

To me I wanted to say "the truth" no matter what, in a mechanical way without thinking at all, even though my truth was already a lie in itself, not working on myself, not seeing reality as it is but as I wanted it to be. A regular narcissistic wounded individual osit.

I don't know if it helps though.

This helps a lot, especially your specific examples but, of course, the Nazi examples are powerful, too.

Can you explain even further what you mean "even though my truth was already a lie in itself"? You are saying because you hadn't worked on yourself, your perceptions of the truth weren't objective/the truth, right? But sometimes people who haven't worked on themselves can still manage to squeak out some truth, can they not?

On a side, I heard or read somewhere that the truth is simple, that it doesn't require long explanations. I have not found that to be true in my experience however.

In this article (http://www.sott.net/article/221046-The-key-to-an-objective-worldview-is-to-know-thyself) we can read:

Some people always claim that Truth is simple and all you have to do is this or that, be compassionate, positive, show love, visualize, follow your "bliss", no judgments, etc.....and many other ideals and words are being used for which everyone seems to have a different understanding or just a memorized definition. Boris Mouravieff gives an insight into the "Simplicity of Truth" in his Gnosis Trilogy:

"We often demand simplicity from esoteric teaching on the generally accepted principle that Truth itself must be simple. We conclude from this that access to this Truth should also be simple, and so the method which leads to it must be easily assimilable. This argument is perfectly correct on condition that we ourselves are simple, that is, just, in the sense used in the Gospel. Sadly, this is not so, because of the anarchy that reigns among our "987″ little I's. There is a long path to travel from our distorted state of inner disorder to our original simplicity. This is the Way that leads the seeker from the wilderness of ignorance to the Light of Tabor. Experience shows that in practice this doctrine of 'simplicity', if it is regarded as an axiom, turns the student aside from the strait gate and the narrow way that leads to life. Impelled by this counter-truth, he believes he stands before this door, when he is in reality-although undoubtedly in perfectly good faith-walking on the wide path that leads to perdition. This doctrine of simplicity, correct in itself but wrongly interpreted, becomes a snare for our hearts that are already too corrupt; a danger which should be recognized and avoided."

 

[salinafaerie]

In the spirit of a duality defined by STO/STS, Creation/Entropy, Ascending/Descending, B-influence/A-influence, etc, one has a decision to make in every given moment. The choice one makes in this decision aligns one with either the Creative principle or Entropic principle. The Third Force is the configuration of circumstances, structures, and characters in that given moment that define the alignment of the choices one has. Truly one of the most dangerous occult truths, the Third Force implies that no moral dogma is comprehensive enough to inform one involved in The Work on how to act in alignment with the Creative principle in every possible situation. This idea is closely related to the principle of "perspicacity", which is the discernment of what the Third Force can reveal about the nature of the choices in that given moment.

So in other words, there is absolutely no black and white about lying, correct?

And here (http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=894) you can read about lies and lying, the following:

Lies and Lying

Lies are ubiquitous in both man's inner and outer life. Any work aspiring towards truth needs to deal with this state of matters. To begin to sort this out, we must distinguish between various forms of lying. The below draws on Mouravieff's discussion of lying in the Gnosis series.

Lies can be classified in the following categories:

Necessary lies - There are situations where lying Is essential to survival or to capacity to function. Peter's denying of Jesus is an archetypal example of this.

Useful lies - Disinformation and various misrepresentation are common in politics, business, advertising and so forth. These are often not direct demonstrable falsehoods but rather spins put on events. These, as well as various withholding of information, scheming and so forth are done for gain and essentially to serve the self at the expense of another. Functioning in the world requires one at least to be aware of this. Such actions are in principle antithetical to STO-oriented esoteric development, yet the seeker may be forced to have recourse to secrecy or disinforming either in professional life or in order to be able to maintain his quest in a world which is for the most part hostile to such endeavors.

Useless lies - People sometimes lie out of habit, give false impressions in order to please or be socially accepted, exaggerate their accomplishments and hide their failings, all in the context of regular small talk. Such lying is not necessary nor is it useful and it generally only serves to dissipate energy and subtly increase subjectivity.

White lies - Lying can sometimes be motivated by noble motives such as concern for others. This is the case for example when telling a sick person that the sickness not be fatal when in fact it is. Mouravieff compares this to attempting to perform a miracle with insufficient means. The word does not change the world.

Lies to self - Of all forms of lying, lies to self are esoterically the most harmful. This is the only form of lying which is never justified. One effect of lying to self is increasing the factionalization of little I's, where one little I misleads another, thus going directly contrary to the goal of forging an internal unity. Another effect of lying to self, specially if the lie to self is believed by a large faction of little I's, is weakening one's faculty of discernment. Habitual lying to self promotes sleep and introduces internal noise conflicting with the signals from those parts of self which do not believe the lie to self. Deliberately lying to others is less destructive to integrity than lying to self, specially if the latter lie is believed and absorbed into the self.

There are various psychological techniques of influencing the self, such as NLP (neurolinguistic programming) and diverse techniques of suggestion and hypnosis. These can certainly be used for lying to the self but are not limited to this. Widespread use of these methods does run the risk of simply constructing more internal fantasies about the self, which is ultimately harmful. At the very least, one should know what effect one attempts to create and why.

Gurdjieff says concerning lying that in most circumstances, man lies or tells the truth mechanically, simply because he cannot do otherwise. Only when there is a measure of non-mechanical being and intentionality does lying or telling the truth become significant. Moral or ethical considerations do not apply to machines. One must have a degree of mastery over the self in order to make choices concerning honesty. All is predicated on the circumstance and the level of being of the participants. Within the Work, honesty is required; in the outside world, compulsive honesty can even be a form of hysteria and lead to all manner of trouble.

The question of truth and lies relates to entropy and creation through the fact that lying always introduces confusion and disorder into the system of the world. In a world that is based on lies and half-truths playing along with this is to a degree necessary. Lying generally introduces added separation between the one who lies and the one to whom one lies. As an internal phenomenon this is contrary to the Work. As an outside interaction, separating one's inner life from another by lies can be vital.

Lies are a form of power over others. In terms of the STO/STS dynamic, lies are a tool of service to self. Lies are aligned with the principle of entropy simply because the more lies the world contains, the less organized and fragmented it becomes and the more energy is expended in maintaining all this complexity. This ties up energy which otherwise could be expressed creatively. This is true within the individual as well as at the societal scale,.

A lie can be seen as an indirect request for truth. In a situation of confrontation where lies are used as instruments, the defense consistent with the STO orientation is confronting the lies and spin with truth. Lies and their promoters can often be recognized by the fact that they tend to shift in response to circumstance and become entangled in their own contradictions while truth remains stable.

So lying as well as honesty and dishonesty can be used for both, for STS (mechanical) direction or STO direction.
It depends on the given situation, if a lie, dishonesty or honesty are "good" (STO) or "bad" (STS).

So being truthful or honest can be as mechanical as lying to the self, given the specific situation and how one is dealing with it.

Gurdjieff onces painted ordinary birds with paint, in order to give them the look of expensive canary birds. He then sold them as canary birds, to rich people. (I think this story was ISOTM, but I'm not sure).

Now, that action could be interpreted as dishonesty or lying with a entropic intent, but Gurdjieff did this with a higher good in mind, respectively the indemnity that his work can and must continue in order that other people can continue to learn from it, in the future.

I did not realize the distinctions in lying. Thank you very much for the schooling. I have much to ponder.

On your last point about Gurdjieff, I do wonder where that could lead. Obviously, the work he has left us all is immeasurable but what of the man who robs or steals with his own "higher good" in mind but that higher good didn't turn out as well as Gurdifieff's did? Then what?

Thank you, Pashalis.

 

[salinafaerie]

In this article (http://www.sott.net/article/221046-The-key-to-an-objective-worldview-is-to-know-thyself) we can read:

Some people always claim that Truth is simple and all you have to do is this or that, be compassionate, positive, show love, visualize, follow your "bliss", no judgments, etc.....and many other ideals and words are being used for which everyone seems to have a different understanding or just a memorized definition. Boris Mouravieff gives an insight into the "Simplicity of Truth" in his Gnosis Trilogy:

"We often demand simplicity from esoteric teaching on the generally accepted principle that Truth itself must be simple. We conclude from this that access to this Truth should also be simple, and so the method which leads to it must be easily assimilable. This argument is perfectly correct on condition that we ourselves are simple, that is, just, in the sense used in the Gospel. Sadly, this is not so, because of the anarchy that reigns among our "987″ little I's. There is a long path to travel from our distorted state of inner disorder to our original simplicity. This is the Way that leads the seeker from the wilderness of ignorance to the Light of Tabor. Experience shows that in practice this doctrine of 'simplicity', if it is regarded as an axiom, turns the student aside from the strait gate and the narrow way that leads to life. Impelled by this counter-truth, he believes he stands before this door, when he is in reality-although undoubtedly in perfectly good faith-walking on the wide path that leads to perdition. This doctrine of simplicity, correct in itself but wrongly interpreted, becomes a snare for our hearts that are already too corrupt; a danger which should be recognized and avoided."

Again, thank you Pashalis, this gives me much to ponder. That the truth should be simple, in each and every context, has never sat well with me.

Speaking of "no judgement", what do you or anyone think about that often used concept?

Thanks again.

 

[anart]

On your last point about Gurdjieff, I do wonder where that could lead. Obviously, the work he has left us all is immeasurable but what of the man who robs or steals with his own "higher good" in mind but that higher good didn't turn out as well as Gurdifieff's did? Then what?

Then, life goes on as it always does and all there is is lessons. The point is that one must always remember the Law of Three. There is right, there is wrong and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.

 

[anart]

Speaking of "no judgement", what do you or anyone think about that often used concept?

Not sure in exactly what context you are referring to the phrase "no judgement" - but it is usually a paramoralism. The reality is that there are behaviors that should be "judged" - pedophilia, rape, murder, genocide, psychopathy in all its colors - seeing and stating the truth is important in a world of lies and no one hides better behind "thou shalt not judge" than a psychopath. But - as always - the Law of Three applies - there is right, there is wrong and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.

 

[salinafaerie]

Speaking of "no judgement", what do you or anyone think about that often used concept?

Not sure in exactly what context you are referring to the phrase "no judgement" - but it is usually a paramoralism. The reality is that there are behaviors that should be "judged" - pedophilia, rape, murder, genocide, psychopathy in all its colors - seeing and stating the truth is important in a world of lies and no one hides better behind "thou shalt not judge" than a psychopath. But - as always - the Law of Three applies - there is right, there is wrong and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.

Thanks for this. I am so over the "no judgment" all of life should be a lollipop people, who are many in the west coast where I live. Must be time to move.