Ruth said:
It is my 'idea' that an STO individual would be able to 'work' and relate quite nicely with OPs! Some might describe this as 'networking', others, perhaps may see it more like sheperding or 'helping the herd' out. It simply wouldn't matter, as it is 'serving others' regardless of who they are...
Sure, an STO
Individual would be able to "work" quite nicely with OP's. But that "work" would have to be on the terms of the OP's. Technically an STO person can "serve" anyone, including STS. IMO, however, the STO person really seeks to serve the whole, the Universe in its unfoldment. And since serving STS would not serve the total unfoldment, it is usually avoided.
Similarly, the only help OP's would accept would be help on their terms, and to live in harmony in their way. And this way would have to take into account that the STO Individual (STOI) would have to avoid issues of individuation with those OP's, because that is not their way. Because the STOI would have to address OP's exclusively on their terms of acceptance and deny expression of the more profound aspects his/her individuated soul dynamic, she/he would be limited, if not inhibited in that interaction.
Of course, for the good of all this may be warranted. However, it is NOT networking, but a one-sided interaction catering to a certain status quo. Networking is a circulation of potential and capability where those involved use apply their potential to the maximum, IMO. Do beings of 3D network with beings of 2D? Do beings of 4D network with beings of 3D? The STOI may have many things to offer to the OP group, but what about feedback that would trigger greater "service potential" in the STOI?
Networking happens when elements combine to form a greater coherent system of freely interacting parts. The thing is that by respecting the freedom of the OP group, the STOI is never free to access their full service potential overall. That potential is stimulated with other people moving to individuation. So an STOI can help OP's greatly, but the latter cannot help the STOI to greater evolutionary potential beyond the terms of service.
I think a genuine STOI would make a poor "shepherd". The reason is the STOI does not assist unless asked, and is limited by what the group asks, while a shepherd must goad and manipulate the herd. True STO does not manipulate you, even for your own good. In truth, there is little an STOI can give OP's that they cannot provide for themselves. And there are many OP's with STO traits that can be competent guides for the harmony of the group.
That does not mean, however, that sometimes an Individual cannot be of help to such groups. Regarding extended networking...I don't think so.
Ruth said:
The question all people need to ask themselves should perhaps be whether 'spotting the non-OP' (from an STS perspective) helpful or not? My guess is to first become STO might help. If a person had a good grounding in that, their interactions might be more beneficial. The other problem is that we don't really know what the difference between OP and non-OP is. And behaviour isn't a good indicator, because it can't be qualified or quantified to one 'type' or the other.
I would think the idea of "spotting" other people undergoing Individuation would be of tremendous help. Is this not what we are doing here? Are we not "spotting" individuating others in order to network in terms of individuation? And again STS/STO is not either/or in most people who are individuating. We are all in transition, and the point of spotting like-minded others is to facilitate that transition.
Otherwise such individuation would best occur in isolation, or under the "tutelage" of some STO "teacher", and "spotting" would only be done by such teachers. I don't think this is the way things are meant to work these days. We are all in this together, pulling ourselves by our bootstraps at the same time.
And by having people become STO first and then coming into "service", the more complex and profound processes of learning are denied. To BECOME STO one must learn, to learn one must interact, to interact one must discern, and part of that discernment is to know with whom one is interacting. We do not need more teachers to provide learning,
we need to learn how to learn.
I don't know about you, but this thread has pretty much given me a good idea as to what is and what is not an OP in a very practical way. So to keep claiming the whole thread has come to little or no practical conclusion, is to refuse to absorb what it has to offer. There are 18 useful pages that cannot be condensed into a few lines. One has to absorb and ponder their meanings, and learn to apply it in one's own unique circumstances. One has to learn to absorb, learn to think about what is being absorbed, and learn to apply it. That learning is one's own responsibility.
Ruth said:
Another problem is: If a person is not able to 'spot' a simpler form of life (that is: an OP), then, how is one to 'spot' a non-OP? By behaviour? no?!! That wouldn't work in my opinion.
A person is, however, able to "spot" themselves. If such a person is individuating and learns to know and understand themself, which is part and parcel of individuating, then a person can recognize compatible qualities in others. Like attracts like, and like can comprehend like. What you say is true if you do not have immediate individuation potential. And such an ability to recognize individuation in others rests on the ability to recognize individuation in oneself, which has nothing to do with spotting behavioural traits, IMO.
Ruth said:
Yes, two different breeds of animal, just like OPs and non-OPs. But, of course, much more practically 'problematical'.... and dangerous. The least 'dangerous' animal, to me is the OP, followed by their more dangerous non-OPs cousins in their many individuated, unaware and out of control, STS forms.
Well, failed OP's are psychopathic, non-OP's can be psychopathic and there are obviously many types of psychopathy, characteropathy, sociopathy etc. As I think has been said before, psychopathy may emerge from OP's and non-OP's alike because it can potentially affect the full spectrum of humanity. As to "unaware" and "out of control", I would think Individuated psychopaths can be very aware and very much in control. That, IMO, would be what makes them very dangerous, their concentrated, calculating and conscious deliberation.
Ruth said:
The question you need to ask yourself - would you treat a dangerous animal any differently in order to minimise danger, because it was a different type of animal, or would you just react to minimise the danger? Is there a difference in how a person reacts which would be dependant on the 'type' of psychopath?
Regarding the first question: What do you mean by "react", and by "treating differently"? I would think if the point was to minimize the danger, then all actions must be based on knowledge of the "animal", myself and the circumstances that brought me in hypothetical proximity with such an "animal". Thus I would have to learn not only "things", but the proper way to access and combine that knowledge corresponding to what I was confronting.
In other words, to address your second question, if there were no difference at all in how to deal each case of psychopathy, why bother making distinctions? If a psychopath was a psychopth was a psychopath, and that is all there was to it, it would be a very simple thing to recognize psychopathy and take simple measures to deal with it, and books like Ponerology could be condensed into one chapter. Yet even Ponerology is only scratching the surface of the matter.
Primarily, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as far as encountering psychopaths is concerned. As such, learning to recognize them in each and every form is part of dealing with the situation. If one is already being influenced, then also each virus has different antibodies that deal with it. Being immune to yesterday's flu does not mean you are immune to all flu viruses, although you CAN boost your immunity in general.
Again, in my opinion a simple "how to" manual will not work here. One needs to learn how to learn how to approach this issue first because there are not only categories here, but probably sub categories to the point that each and every case has its own unique aspects. Thus, one needs to creatively come up with solutions and improvise as the situation demands.
