Organic Portals: Human variation

[Saman]

I was talking more about OP's in general rather than the psychopathic types, I suppose that perhaps the analogy between they guy I knew and laura's aquaintance might have given rise to that ...

Actually, I was talking more ab[o]ut OPs as well since I stated "the key in the above I think is the point to discern over a long period of observation, say like perhaps a few or more years depending on the [observer's] actualized "intellectual capacity", [to discern] whether the [subject is] [] twisting the perception of others so as to seem to be empathetic [] [.]" I don't think you need a long period of observation to discern psychopaths, that is, if I am correct in the assumption that you probably mean this is by stating "psychopathic types." :)

 

[highmystica]

Oh, okay - I get what you mean - sorry I was working off the assumption that only the pychopathic types would bother to "fake" empathy ...
I don't aggree with your statement that you don't need a long period of time to discern psychopaths - consider one of the most extreme forms of psychopathy and that is the case of the serial murderer - they often go years and years without being caught, and you always here the same kind of statements from their neighbors and co-workers - "oh so and so was the sweetest kindest person" etc ...

 

[Saman]

Oh, okay - I get what you mean - sorry I was working off the assumption that only the pychopathic types would bother to "fake" empathy ...
I don't aggree with your statement that you don't need a long period of time to discern psychopaths - consider one of the most extreme forms of psychopathy and that is the case of the serial murderer - they often go years and years without being caught, and you always here the same kind of statements from their neighbors and co-workers - "oh so and so was the sweetest kindest person" etc ...

Well, I am talking about close or intimate relationships where one is directly involved with the subject. Sorry if I was not clear. So in regards to the context of the latter, in this way, the mask of a psychopath, or say a failed OP, is much easier to discern if we are to compare this requisite of discernment in comparison to "seeing the unseen" in regards to an OP that has mastered the twisting of perceptions as to seem to be empathetic, and so for the former, it would be a rather much shorter period of observation compared to the latter, or so I think. :)

 

[highmystica]

Okay I agree with that if I understood that last sentance correctly ... I *think*. But the length of time it takes to discern one type of OP versus another is irrelevant, and it still boils down to the fact that among those that are the most difficult to percieve are the psychopathic kinds ... and among the OP's it is the psychopath that is the most important to see ...

 

[Saman]

Okay I agree with that if I understood that last sentance correctly ... I *think*.

I will try to clarify what I meant in another way. What I meant by "former" was in regards to failed OPs which the C's have stated to be psychopaths. What I meant by "latter" was in regards to OPs that have mastered twisting the perception of "potentially fully souled" individuals as to seem empathetic. So, does the latter clarify what I meant? If not, please just let me know. Again, if you missed it originally in the above excerpt, here is what the C's stated in regards to the failed OPs:

July 13, 2002

Ark, Laura, BT, VG
[...]
A: Pretty much. Most of them are very
efficient machines. The ones that you
have identified as psychopaths are
"failures." The best ones cannot be
discerned except by long and careful
observation.
[...]

But the length of time it takes to discern one type of OP versus another is irrelevant,

Well, as I stated before, I think it depends on one's actualized "intellectual capacity", or so I think. Here is what the C's stated in regards to the latter concept:

August 8, 1995 F***, Laura, SV
[...]
Q: (L) The reason I ask this is because I have noticed that certain persons can skew the
incoming material in the direction of their particular prejudices because of their emotional
attachment to these prejudices. And I am sure that my own prejudices have an influence as
well. But, I notice that very often the understanding of the material by others is quite
different from what F*** and I understand. It seems that we all hear something different.
Does this indicate a vibrational differential which could be considered a lack of rapport,
or some other phenomenon of which I am not aware?
A: The only phenomenon that is present here that is in any way related to the situation you
describe is what could be termed intellectual capacity, which is not related directly to
vibrational frequency. Think, if you will, in your lifetime have you ever met either a) an
individual that you did not perceive to be particularly intellectually developed, who was,
nevertheless, of a very kind and loving and giving nature; or b) an individual whom you
perceive to have great intellectual capacity who was, nevertheless, extremely selfish and
non-giving and not generous and not concerned about anyone's well being but their own?
Q: (L) Yes. I know exactly what you mean. But there is still some gap that I am trying to
fathom here. I have a little theory that people who are en rapport tend to think in similar
ways or with similar patterns, even if at different levels. And I think that because of
emotional similarity or identity of purpose or orientation, that they might almost begin to
think as one mind or move as one body, to work as a unit. Why is this not happening? Why
the disparity?
A: The real issue involved is one of intellectual capacity, which, in and of itself, can lead
to all sorts of emotional entanglements and frictions. It does not require a differential in
vibrational frequency level to produce the types of symptoms that you describe. It is merely
intellectual capacity that is inferior rather than the vibrational frequency level. Again, this
vibrational frequency level involves nature of being and emotion, not intelligence.
[...]

and it still boils down to the fact that among those that are the most difficult to percieve are the psychopathic kinds

Well, I think it seems reasonable and in accord to the data above from the above excerpts that your statement above might not be true, that is, or so I think. But then again, you have stated "psychopathic kinds" and before "psychopathic types" which I don't think relate directly to a failed OP because I have reason to believe that even a "potentially fully souled" individual, that is if not aware and vigilant from external techno manipulations through Knowledge, Being, and Understanding, can be used as a "portal" of attack in regards to psychopathic kinds, or types, of attacks...

... and among the OP's it is the psychopath that is the most important to see ...

I think seeing psychopathic or sociopathic type of attacks is important whether the individual is actually an OP, a failed OP, or a 4D STS candidate since then one can through awareness protect oneself from energy drains, or even much worse potential possibilities...

 

[highmystica]

perhaps I have missed something important, but it seems to me a psychopath is a failed OP, in the transcrips there is nothing to lead me to the idea that a successfull OP is still psychopathic ... I don't think an OP is neccessarily prone to psychopathy - and all that stuff regarding the 6% of the population being psychopaths seems to go with what I have said. However it is important to recognize the danger that even a standard OP is capable of in that they can be hijacked from the inside by 4D-STS. As far as the 4D-STS canidate I don't think of them as psychopaths, they are indeed something worse ... somebody posted the concept "entropath" or at least something very similar to that *somewhere* in this thread and I kind of like the idea of calling them something other than psychopathic ...

 

[Nathan]

Highmystica, I think Harrison (hkoeli) suggested the phrase "entropath". The most recent thoughts on phrasing for psychopaths were:

Well, some researchers already use "primary psychopath" for the genetic kind and "secondary psychopath" for the "sociopath" that is not a genetic psychopath but rather "made" by circumstances. But neither of these addresses what Loabczewski seems to be calling the "Essential Psychopath." So, maybe we can use "primary psychopath" to refer to the genetic, defective OP type, and "Essential" to refer to the "possessed" type.

Anyway, as for the current discussion...

Furthermore and moreover, the key in the above I think is the point to discern over a long period of observation, say like perhaps a few or more years depending on the [observer's] actualized "intellectual capacity", [to discern] whether the [subject is] [] twisting the perception of others so as to seem to be empathetic [] [.] [F]or i.e.[,] trying to charmingly do superficially nice favors for the ones that they have hurt over and over again in the aftermath when the so called "victims" have not Asked for these things[.]

I was talking more about OP's in general rather than the psychopathic types,

Actually, I was talking more ab[o]ut OPs as well since I stated "the key in the above I think is the point to discern over a long period of observation, say like perhaps a few or more years depending on the [observer's] actualized "intellectual capacity", [to discern] whether the [subject is] [] twisting the perception of others so as to seem to be empathetic [] [.]" I don't think you need a long period of observation to discern psychopaths, that is, if I am correct in the assumption that you probably mean this is by stating "psychopathic types."

That depends on how successful the psychopath is.

Oh, okay - I get what you mean - sorry I was working off the assumption that only the pychopathic types would bother to "fake" empathy ...

Anyone is capable of "faking" empathy.

Having said that, I admit I was also under the impression Saman was referring to psychopaths only.

Saman, I get the impression you consider OPs to be incapable of empathy. Do you mean all OPs? The following excerpt comes to mind:

July 13, 2002:

(A) How can I know if I have a soul?
A: Do you ever hurt for another?
Q: (V) I think they are talking about empathy. These soulless humans simply don't care what happens to another person. If another person is in
pain or misery, they don't know how to care.
A: The only pain they experience is "withdrawal" of "food" or comfort, or what they want. They are also masters of twisting perception of others so as to seem to be empathetic. But, in general, such actions are simply to retain control.

So if you are suggesting that OPs are incapable of empathy at all, then the above excerpt would support this view. Nonetheless, I am reluctant to agree. Saman, I would just like to highlight some of things you have said, which I originally thought was in reference to psychopaths, which you later pointed out that you were "talking more about OPs as well".

...trying to charmingly do superficially nice favors for the ones that they have hurt over and over again...
...retain the illusive mask of their "tool" as being a caring and good individual in order to be again able in the future to "lure" the unaware "prey" back into their influential domain of control...

This sounds more like a psychopath's behaviour, not necessarily an OP's. Sorry to bug you on this but it is unclear to me as to whether this is "more about OPs as well". If so, are you saying that you consider all OPs to be completely incapable of empathy?

In my opinion, OPs are capable of empathy to a limited degree - just not at the capacity of a souled individual. Unlike psychopaths, they do have a conscience, albeit a somewhat suppressed or hindered one. As has been discussed on pages 5-10 of this thread, forum members have hypothesised, based on observation and experience, that OPs are able to empathise more readily with physical pain, but struggle to empathise with emotional pain or the suffering of people who are not directly interacting with them (say, those suffering in Iraq or Palestine). Their capacity to empathise is not as developed - and this may also be connected to the lack of the higher emotional centre (but that's just my little theory and one that is nearly impossible to verify).

But to say OPs have no empathy at all, assuming of course that this is what you suggest, I just don't think it's that simple.

 

[highmystica]

Thanks nathan for pointing out that it was Harrison (hkoeli) that introduced the idea of the entropath.

I agree with what you said about anyone being able to imitate empathy, however being able to and actually doing it are two different things, and I don't think the average OP has the same pressure to do it as a psychopath would. Hmm, this also connects to what you say about the OP's being able to feel empathy to a degree. Empathy seems to me to be related to a connectedness to soul, and as they have soul they must be able to feel empathy, but as you point out and I agree with you on this it is more connected to the more physical and tangible aspects of existance. The OP in general doesn't need to imitate the same kind of empathy that exists in the non-OP type, and in a lot of ways it wouldn't even make sence to them to try, they *seem* to have a different orientation ... why would they try and fake something they don't directly perceive ... it is the psychopathic types that would absolutely feel the need to imitate the higher centers because they are predatorial by nature. Hmm, thinking about it a bit more I would think that the non psychopathic OP would be very comfortable with their view, considering that not only do they make up the majority of OP's this reality has been influenced in such away as to make it difficult for the non-OP to work with their higher centers. The non-OP might even *seem* crazier to the standard OP than say the psychopathic type ...

 

[Guest]

The non-OP might even *seem* crazier to the standard OP than say the psychopathic type ...

This is actually true, and I think some thoughts on the incompatiblity between OP thinking and non-OP thinking have been discussed on this thread. If you like, you can look at this page (specifically Laura's post on page 7):

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=457.msg3384#msg3384

and the posts on page 8, speak a lot of the differences between OP's and non-OP's (the whole thread does, but one post on page 7, and page 8 relate to your observation here).

Non-OP's are moved to evolve their soul presence, and they manifest their potential for inidividuation, which is latent in the beginning (making them indistinguishable from OP's prior to moving toward individuation). They do so through the process of inner development that changes their world view, which grows to be at odds with the OP world view.

How many have been called crazy, who are really realizing their ensouled nature? And if someone individuating tries to make an OP understand their point of view, the OP can easily start making looping motions with their finger next to their temple.

 

[highmystica]

Quite right - though the majority of this thread illustrates the differences in their lines of thought - I agree with your assessment regarding the evolution of the OP's as I pointed out a page back. I have thought more about relative slowness of the evolution of the OP's from what I posted before earlier, and they probably have more pressures to slow down their evolution than what I mentioned - I seem to have missed the obvious one - inertia. I've been thinking a little bit about the dynamics of their individuation process, and it seems logical to me that perhaps a group soul is divided over say 1000 individuals (a purely arbitrary number) and at some point during its evolution it reaches a critical mass of karmic experience and divides into two seperate soul groups that each make up 500 individuals, and the process continues until each part is an individual - of course that is purely speculation on my part, but perhaps if the idea is refined further it could be used as a theoretical model ... but then I suppose it isn't important so much to figure out how OP's evolve, only to recognize that they do ... sorry if I'm rambling - I've been reading another really long post here and my mind is mush - lol

 

[highmystica]

I recently saw the movie "american psycho" on the sci-fi channel and I was amazed by it, though the character was a bit more extreme that the "average psychopath" (at least as such is presented in works like the mask of sanity) it was in my opinion far better than the average hollywood version of a psychopath ... especially the protrayal of the main character's inner workings - that bugged me for a few days ... has anyone else seen this movie?

 

[Laura]

has anyone else seen this movie?

No, but you have got my attention. I'll have to get it!

 

[highmystica]

yeah I was surprised it was even on t.v. all things considered ... though it was rather late at night somewhere around 11 or 12 I think ... anyway it is an older movie - I never heard of it when it first came out, I hope to track down the book it was based on, but that is currently in my books to get in august bin ... It is highly recomended

 

[Saman]

Saman, I get the impression you consider OPs to be incapable of empathy. Do you mean all OPs?
The following excerpt comes to mind:

Well, yes and no, and the former is regards to True Empathy, and the latter is in regards to discerning whether what they do in the aftermath of an attack through them is sincere contextually to the happenings of the attack or only a perceiving mirror, a mimicking, of what one would ascribe as "soul qualities" to such Beings that seem to lack emotional understanding on how the dynamics of the attack, and so, not really getting to the root of the issue through what they claim to be sincere introspection and pledges to not allow themselves to be a "portal" for attack again in the future. What I mean is that OPs that are failed OPs no longer are able to do what the C's have stated in the following, or so I think, and so the mask of empathy is no longer convincing, and [in] some cases, no thought of such Beings [being] empathic, that is depending on the extremity of the anti-social behavior, even manifests in the mind:

July 13, 2002

Ark, Laura, BT, VG
[...]
A: Quite closely. In an individual of the organic variety, the so-called higher
chakras are "produced in effect" by stealing that energy from souled beings. This
is what gives them the ability to emulate souled beings. The souled being is, in
effect, perceiving a mirror of their own soul when they ascribe "soul qualities" to
such beings.
[...]

July 13, 2002:

(A) How can I know if I have a soul?
A: Do you ever hurt for another?
Q: (V) I think they are talking about empathy. These soulless humans simply don't care what happens to another person. If another person is in
pain or misery, they don't know how to care.
A: The only pain they experience is "withdrawal" of "food" or comfort, or what they want. They are also masters of twisting perception of others so as to seem to be empathetic. But, in general, such actions are simply to retain control.

So if you are suggesting that OPs are incapable of empathy at all, then the above excerpt would support this view. Nonetheless, I am reluctant to agree. Saman, I would just like to highlight some of things you have said, which I originally thought was in reference to psychopaths, which you later pointed out that you were "talking more about OPs as well".

I think perhaps the key is in discerning whether it is true empathy due to noticing if their so called acts and say proclamations of stating that they are sorry and thus working towards so to say "redemption", or say so called "pledges" of not doing what they have done over and over again in future by requesting to be excused over and over again since they are still learning are true to their words and actions or not over a long period of linear time, and moreover, if such acts or statements of being sorry are even contexually relevant in the sense of being emotionally understanding in regards to groking the details of the attack and thus [the] relevance on how they allowed themselves to be used to as [a] "tool" to precisely drain another individual of life force, and this I think is perhaps what the C's were hinting at by stating that "the best ones cannot be discerned except by long and careful observation". So if one is just perceiving a mirror of "soul qualities" that one assumes a "potentially fully souled" individual to be able to grok emotionally, and if such "soul qualities" may seem to be just displaying so called empathy that does not really get to the heart of the matter contexually, and hence, seem somewhat synthetic, then perhaps this is [the] key in discernment in regards to OPs that are "masters of twisting perception of others so as to seem to be empathetic", or so I think.

...trying to charmingly do superficially nice favors for the ones that they have hurt over and over again...
...retain the illusive mask of their "tool" as being a caring and good individual in order to be again able in the future to "lure" the unaware "prey" back into their influential domain of control...

This sounds more like a psychopath's behaviour, not necessarily an OP's. Sorry to bug you on this but it is unclear to me as to whether this is "more about OPs as well". If so, are you saying that you consider all OPs to be completely incapable of empathy?

Well yes in regards to true empathy that is contextually relevant to the heart of a matter and actually shown to be so over a long period of observation, and no since I think some can mirror empathy or say "soul qualities" better then others; moreover, the angle that I [am] stating the latter notion is in discerning OPs that are "masters of twisting perception of others so as to seem to be empathetic", and not the ones that the C's stated are "the ones that you have identified as psychopaths are "failures."

In my opinion, OPs are capable of empathy to a limited degree - just not at the capacity of a souled individual.

Yes, I currently hold this same opinion as stated above.

Unlike psychopaths, they do have a conscience, albeit a somewhat suppressed or hindered one.

I think they see right and wrong in a strictly black and white code of morality, but then they may mirror to what seems to be a[n] inconsistency to the latter notion from time to time in order to twist ones perception as to seem being truly empathetic, and so, I think this is what one might notice over a long period of observation, or so I think.

As has been discussed on pages 5-10 of this thread, forum members have hypothesised, based on observation and experience, that OPs are able to empathise more readily with physical pain, but struggle to empathise with emotional pain or the suffering of people who are not directly interacting with them (say, those suffering in Iraq or Palestine). Their capacity to empathise is not as developed - and this may also be connected to the lack of the higher emotional centre (but that's just my little theory and one that is nearly impossible to verify).

Hmm, here is a notion: maybe it would be a more sound assessment to state that they can sympathize more readily with physical pain rather then both sympathize and empathize...

But to say OPs have no empathy at all, assuming of course that this is what you suggest, I just don't think it's that simple.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

A few thoughts:

I think it is important to know what Laura's understanding of "psychopaths" was when the C's said that they were failed OP's. That is, what definition were they using for "psychopath"? For example, there are anti-social psychopaths who are extremely violent from a young age. They are easily spotted, and it is obvious that they lack even simple conscience (i.e. the emotional center). Were these violent types what the C's meant by "psychopath", or were they including more psychopathic types? The more intelligent psychopaths use their 'mask of sanity' to appear normal, and are thus not as easily spotted. (An intesting side note, in the movie American Psycho, the main character says "I feel like my mask of sanity is slipping.")

Martha Stout devotes a lot of words to 'conscience' in her book, The Sociopath Next Door. From what I grok of the ideas she presents, also keeping in mind Mouravieff, psychopaths lack an emotional center, and thus the ability to form any emotional attachment. Without this, conscience is impossible (they cannot 'feel' for others in any circumstance). The OP, possessing an emotional center, is capable of this attachment. However, it is not Conscience, as Gurdjieff would call it. It is subjective, and can be mis-used. Non-OPs have higher centers, thus "soul qualities." What are these soul qualities? It would seem that they include the ability for true objective empathy, or Conscience. However, I'm still not sure the exact qualities that non-OPs project on OPs.