"Crisis of the Republic" and Pathocrats - An Exercise in Discernment

[Ruth]

A difficulty with this is, that a contributor of a new idea will generally be emotionally attached to this idea ("its MY idea!") and will certainly not appreciate what looks to him (in his emotionally-identifying state) like a personal attack on his ideas, his intellect, nay, on his worth as a person, even questioning whether he is sane at all!

I think we may all be attached to our ideas, regardless of whether they are new, old, far from the truth or close to it.

The difficulty is in seeing how much this is so when we are communicating to others. I don't think anyone is immune from this difficult to see situation.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

But if you don't 'side' with anyone, and the point of your post isn't directed toward anyone - what is the purpose of your 'communication'?

About taking sides, I think this is an utter waste of time. There is no reason to defend anyone or to argue with anyone - if one is seeking truth. In that sense, there is the side of being open, critical, and objective vs side of being closed, presumptuous, and subjective. The latter, entropy, is in constant competition with itself, consisting of a ton of subjective "sides" full of assumptions and arguments. But it's still all the same entropic side.

The former, creation, is all one side. Everyone who follows that path may not be "on the same page", but there are no arguments because there are no prejudices, beliefs, or assumptions that one idea or the other is right, and therefore no one is trying to argue for or against anything with the intent to prove something right or wrong. Everyone is seeking to understand objective reality without having a preconceived notion of what it is. There is evidence and constant effort to be able to correctly interpret that evidence - to read reality more and more accurately.

In light of that, Angelo seems to have a closed approach based on what I can see - he is convinced he's correct, and so everyone that disagrees is simply unable to comprehend or is simply ignorant and therefore cannot possibly offer enlightening information or suggestions that may in fact help him. He doesn't seem to be open to learn or listen to advice and read, the very thing he is telling this group to do. As he said himself after Laura suggested some material to study,

In utter honesty, I'll read what I deem suits my current needs.

I wonder if he would say the same thing if while doing a research project for school someone suggested to him some reading material that they think may help his understanding of the subject matter. Is it impossible that someone may know something or understand something that you, Angelo, do not yet know? Is it possible that they've come across the ideas you currently present before, and as a result and may know reading sources that may offer evidence to suggest certain fallicies in your current views? If you think it's not possible, then your intention is not to learn but to convince us that your perspective is correct, period. If you do think it's possible, why the snide remark? Objectively speaking you are correct, everyone decides for themselves what they need. But in context, it was snide, as it expressed a certain contempt for Laura's suggestion - you declared it a waste of your time, rejected it out of hand because "you know better".

Laura says that from her research and experience, many of the things you're saying she has already been through and found that they do not adequately explain objective reality, and thus, must be discarded in favor of a better hypothesis. However, even if both, you and Laura, read every book and experience everything the other person has ever experienced, you may still come to different conclusions. And so, there's the rub, as many people can look at the exact same evidence and make different interpretations of it. Therefore, in addition to just collecting evidence and doing research, we must constantly work on being able to interpret it correctly, or in other words, sharpen our "reality reading instrument" and therefore be more critical and objective. This cannot be done in isolation and by doing only that which YOU think will help you - but just the opposite, you must be open to receive the suggestions of others who may be SEEING something that you're not seeing and therefore know what may help you even if you do not yet understand it. No, that doesn't mean that anyone can decide the needs of anyone else, but simply that some people can sometimes SEE what someone else may not be seeing, and may suggest resources that they think may help the other person understand better, if the other person is open to consider such resources.

And the purpose? Truth. Not to convince anyone, not to argue, not to debate, bicker, or to get people "on your side", not to do anything but align yourself as much as you can with objective reality. There is no judge and jury that can declare whose interpretation of reality is correct, the universe does not function as a courtroom, and the purpose of a courtroom is to convince the jury that you're right, nothing more, regardless of whether you actually are right or not. But the universe is its own judge, jury, and executioner. So please do not waste your own time and our time trying to convince us of any concept that you may have, we're not here to be convinced or convince anyone else of anything. What is the sense in it? In the end, the universe is what it is regardless of what any of us says about it, so what is the sense of wasting time arguing over it and trying to prove yourself right and convince others that they're wrong - when instead, we can spend that time trying to figure it out instead?

This is what Ark has been, sometimes rather humorously (intentionally so lol), trying to convey. In the classroom when you and another student disagree whether 2+2=4 or 2+2=5, do you spend 3 hours arguing and debating it? Or do you both join forces and try to use each other's knowledge to help one another figure it out by using every resource that both of you know? Which method seems more productive and likely to lead to the truth faster? The latter is what this group seeks to do.

Of course if your agenda was to obfuscate/confuse/lead astray in the first place, then of course I'm wasting my time appealing to reason. In the end we all go where we fit. So far, you're not fitting into this group very well. Why is that? Is it because we're wrong, because our approach to figuring out reality is somehow incorrect or distorted? Or is yours? Do you pose this question to yourself, ever? If you leave this group, do you leave convinced that we're simply "not at your level" yet? Do you think we have sacred cows or other assumptions that make our theories false and make us unable to see what you're saying? Maybe. But could you be wrong?

No doubt there are plenty of groups out there that for one reason or another do not seek objective reality, despite their claims. Are we such a group as well? And if you ever came across a group that is in line with objective reality as it is, would you even recognize it? How would you know? What indications would you look for? Would you look for how much that group matches your own notions of reality, or something else? Would you look at their fundemental approach to figuring out reality? Are there any principles, any basic fundemental concepts or actions that you consider essential to figure out the true nature of reality? What are they, and does this group meet them or not? If no, why not, and how?

I am simply asking to inspire you to think about this if you have not already. I always ask these things of myself, not just with this group, but any person or group I meet. I try to be as critical and objective as I can, but sometimes my concepts of what is required to figure out reality can themselves be wrong too. My own logic can be wrong as well. Hell, I may be insane for all I know!! So JUST IN CASE this is true, I must remain open to what others say and think and do, and consider their ideas and thoughts and evidence VERY VERY carefully. If I already have come across an idea someone presents to me before, I say that, and if I think I have evidence the indicates that those ideas are false, I show it. Did I interpret that evidence correctly? Maybe, but again, considering the possibility that I'm insane and my logic and ability to SEE and interpret is totally wrong even if I think it's not, I have to remain open. And over time and constant open interaction with others I *MAY* begin to become less insane. Maybe not though. But I have no choice - if I want to have any hope of figuring anything out, I need others to help me, and they need me to help them. It's a group effort. An insane person never knows he's insane. He needs others to tell him! Sleeping person doesn't know he's asleep until he wakes up. Same thing here - I have to consider that I may be insane/asleep, so I have no choice but to work together with others and hope that someone can spot my insanity and point it out to me, if only a little piece at a time.

Are you sane?

 

[Renaissance]

About taking sides, I think this is an utter waste of time. There is no reason to defend anyone or to argue with anyone - if one is seeking truth.

Thanks for pointing this out. I agree. It was largely for this reason that I put 'sides' in quotations. One of the main things I was trying to point out here was the responsibility in being direct. Making generalizations seems to aviod responsibility in discerning the truth as it blinds the eye to the underlying details.

 

[ark]

This is what Ark has been, sometimes rather humorously (intentionally so lol), trying to convey. In the classroom when you and another student disagree whether 2+2=4 or 2+2=5, do you spend 3 hours arguing and debating it?

Let me make here a "scientific joke" with the purpose of demonstrating the "devil" that is in the details.

While I can hardly see a way in which 2+2=5, I can easily see that 1 divided by two may happen to be 3. Yes,

1/2 = 3

To amuse yourself go to Inverses in F5 and play.

This little exercise demonstrates that deatils of the context are important. In this case are we dealing with mathematics. More precisely: with the branch of mathematics that nowadays is being taught to cryptogphers. But in real life we are also dealing with cryptography. Without knowing it, we are coding our messages, and we are decrypting messages that we receive. Being able to code in such a way that our message can be decoded, and being able to decode messages that we receive is a part of the art of "seing the unseen".

Of course there are people that code their messages deliberately in such a way that they act on our subconscious, but are not easily decoded by our conscious minds, because our conscious minds uncosciously assume a different context. So, for instance, if you go to Inverses in F7, you will find that there 1/2=4 is the right answer!

(I am leaving to you to find out why it is so....:) )

P.S. In fact, the same kind of mathematics (algebra over prime fields) is used in "not so sacred geometry", and that will be the subject of my forthcoming paper. C's said:

Geometry gets you there, algebra sets you "free".

 

[vinny]

A difficulty with this is, that a contributor of a new idea will generally be emotionally attached to this idea ("its MY idea!")

I think we may all be attached to our ideas, regardless of whether they are new, old, far from the truth or close to it.

The difficulty is in seeing how much this is so when we are communicating to others. I don't think anyone is immune from this difficult to see situation.

yes, I intended it to be all-inclusive - I'm certainly not excluding the likelyhood of myself attached to MY ideas, I just worded it in general terms.

Also, I meant 'new' ideas in the sense of 'newly introduced to the discussion', the idea itself might have been held closely cherished by the 'introducer' for a long time before it is shared - there is a difference. Newly introduced ideas must be subject to scrutiny, otherwise they can undermine the cumulated study/scrutiny that has ALREADY been applied to ideas that are well established because have been 'in the discussion' for a long time, and stood up to the examination. That is what I was trying to express.

 

[Laura]

This is what Ark has been, sometimes rather humorously (intentionally so lol), trying to convey.

You see, I sense an underlying ill intent in your post Ark. An anger. Can you see your little devils?

I find it fascinating that SAO easily caught the humor of Ark's approach, and Angelo "read" it as an "underlying ill intent" and "anger."

Most curious.

One wonders if the same factor might distort negative intentions entering the field of awareness as well - perhaps reading them as "good" and "positive"?

But then, maybe that is simply an expression of the essential nature?

What is it about humor, I wonder? I have noticed this phenomenon quite often.

 

[Unbeliever]

About taking sides, truth, communication and the will to conquer by conviction:

Truth: Is there even such thing as truth, other than culturally filtered conviction? There is more philosophical pride, spiritual pride or scientific pride, patriotic pride and so on than there is truth.

The ego seeking truth simply is seeking to reinforce and reassure himself that he is right.

There is as much distance between truth, a polarized value relative to falsehood, than there is between knowing and being convinced.

Being convinced of knowing is more related to learned knowledge, by reading for instance, than it is related to knowing. It is a quest for accumulation of experience which falls perfectly in line with the egoic program insufflated by the soul's need for experience, its fabric.

Searching for truth is already on the reveiving end of the agenda given to the incarnate to fulfill. That search for truth is de facto a conditioned behavior. In the case of spirituality, even more so in the case of metaphysics and esoterism, that need for spiritual truth becomes an even more powerful tool to keep the mind captivated by its impression of being evolved, to have acquired a station that allows him to 'teach'.

The spiritual illusions are fundamentally more powerful over the eye than materialistic ones. Esoteric illusions are even more powerful than those of spirituality. Beyond Esoterism, the mental illusion of having a right to 'ascend' and to have integrated one's own energies is the last and most powerful illusion until the only valid teacher, one's own source, reality and identity, penetrates and destroys what the ego perceived of itself.

I will reiterate what I said earlier. The omen of a conversation is more on the shoulders of the one who listens than otherwise for even if the words were perfectly spoken, if there is no ear but a thick ego out to prove his reason in an argument, no light will be allowed to penetrate that mind who is already thinking what parry he will offer instead of a creative opposition that forces the speaker to refine his process. On the other hand, if there is an ear, the speaker will be already forced to go further as he is given a chance of going all the way through his expose. Then, there is no assumption about the whole of a statement since the message cannot be fragmented.

That of course does not mean that the speaker is absolutely right and in all likeliness, the need for adjustment will always exist. The problem comes with the will to adjust the other which is in itself a desire to dominate.

If there is an act of love, after all, it is the act of listening. Listening requires the shutting down of the internal infernal noise that always seeks to silence what could bring a change about within. Anything that goes against the internal program will be silenced. It is only when the experience has been integrated that the challenge goes and poses no threat to the program that the ears opens. The more the experience is integrated, the less the ego needs to combat against words, the less the ego feels threatened by words and the less the ego feels obligated to interpret others' words. Instead, he will wait out on the speaker's time and stifle, which really means 'contain' his own energy for the benefit of recognizing the light in the other.

A statement is rarely totally right or totally wrong. There is a universal law that forbids a perfect intelligence within an individual and that postulates that intelligence can only be perfected by the association of the varied individuals through their interactions. This requires that all parties receive as well as give. It also requires that the individual has left his pride at the doorstep since pride is the death of intelligence. Pride only serves the ego in reinforcing his impression of being right. There is no such thing as being right. Being right or being in the truth are only polarized impressions that are created by the polarized nature of the ego. It is the result of having tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge. This quality of consciousness which is related to the astral, to the realm of the dead. Knowledge of good and evil is a human concept infused by a consciousness that was forced to split its reality with astral energy for the purpose of seeding a particle that was to become a soul and, that at the same time, trapped the entity in a cycle of death and reincarnation. That is the source of the polarization of the human reality.

We cannot use polarized consciousness to 'understand' to palate the infinity of a reality that lies outside of polarization. We cannot use tools that are the creation of a reality we wish to escape in hope that we can escape and keep them after. We cannot retain our consciousness paradigms and be different. We cannot climb that ladder without letting go of the lower step.

Argumentation and systematic oppositions are egoic, psychologic, involutive mechanisms. In the realm of spirit, there is no such thing as this since the energy only seeks to be in movement and manifest by intersecting planes of reality. That intersection creates different impressions of being and the ego is only that: an intersection point between the ray of his creation and the surface of his soul, which belongs to the astral plane, the source of the world of the dead, which is not inhabited by the spirit who would be perceived as a ghost by the dead if he were to manifest in that realm.

The real disinformation comes from within and not from others. It is our tendency to believe, either what we think or what we hear that poses problem to start. It is our profound ignorance of the reality behind our own psyche, that very nature that forbids the uncovering of the liar within to whom we associate because it hides, posing as a system of subjective psycho-emotional thought process.

There are no sides to be taken only material to be expressed. Taking sides is already a polarization process and it is the same process that is responsible for collective ideologies and that make it possible for collective processes to sap the individual's identity and turn it into an extension of itself. In the process of taking sides, there is an automatic degradation of the psychic vibratory rate. This is a form of astralization of the mental. It is a loss of identity for the profit of a collective behavior.

No one has the right to impose his will upon the other. The siding with a collective is an unconscious (or not) move by the ego who chooses to forfeit his identity for the apparent advantage of numbers against the opposing ideology. It is an indirect way of imposing upon others. It is anti-light. It is an instinctive reflex and there is no instinct that come from one's spirit because its nature has nothing of the animal, has nothing of the biological.

Imposition of an ideology is the imposition of the will of a group to protect its program against even those that portend to put it forward and defend it. One should always talk for oneself and by oneself; never for others or by others or their memory. One should become his own master and not the master of others. This is the only seed, the only source of real respect that represents real love. Love is not hidden in words but is an energy that is a state of spirit, as opposed to a mood. It is not a concept metaphysical or that otherwise can be rationalized by the ego (although the ego is quite capable of infinite rationalization). It is a state of fact that can be defined in the will of rendering free perfectly.

There is no such a will where there is the will to convince and to impose. There is no such a will where there is the consciousness to dominate in order to secure a certain status quo within the ideologically supported process. Ideologies and egoic polarization requires us to take side. In doing so, we sell our identity and we remain 'humans'. We perpetuate the philosophical concept that it is man's faults and weaknesses that make him such a great and beautiful race. We reinforce the mechanisms that make it possible to sustain a level of ignorance hidden behind the veil of common sense.

These things we already know. We tend to recognize these mechanisms in others and fail to short circuit them when they blind us. It is not so much in the other that we need to correct reality but within.

 

[kenlee]

The convoluted and difficult language is also probably a result of this self-referencing. Essentially it is a form of language that has developed in isolation in the person's own head and has rarely been tempered by the input or the needs of others. Yet to the person in question, it is the "truth" that they have confirmed to themselves over and over again. When interacting with others, the "logic" that is followed is: If others can see the "truth" then they will also understand what is being said, if they don't, then it is evidence that they don't know and can't understand the "truth". It is an airtight and self-fulfilling prophecy.

Indeed. Such misuse of language leads to subjective interpretations taken as objective facts. It leads to the intentional or unintentional omission of factual information leading up to erroneous conclusions. It leads to using abstract concepts to define concrete terms and so on. The end result of all this word salad is what is I think could be called subjectivism. Subjectivism is not so much disorder as it is order in the wrong place. This 'misplaced order' of the 'subjectivist' (if I may use that term) is what Gurdjieff
calls 'pouring from the empty into the void.' The subjectivist believes their own world where all realities are measured exclusively by their beliefs. The subjectivist cannot grasp the nature of time itself. They live not in the past nor future since the subjectivist is incapable of perceiving lines of time other then their own. The subjectivist fears everything except the real terror of the situation. Being out of touch with reality the subjectivist cannot relate the objective facts of the world that pertain to this psychopathic reality to their own physical dissolution, since the subjectivist, with all their 'theorizing,' sees the objectively insignificant as of great importance and the objectively important as insignificant. The subjectivist lives in a false world imposed by a false order. The end result of all this is a distortion of the value experience, since the experiences of the subjectivist are as imaginary as theirs belief structures. In a way you say that the world of the subjectivist has no depth. Their world is more like a television screen. As you get closer and closer to the screen the images disappear. What's left are simply pixels or horizontal scan lines which are not the properties of the objects themselves but are simply properties of the system of image production. It is the underlying reality that has the true depth. For the subjectivist there is no depth. For the 'subjectivist reality' there is simply what lies on the surface of their perceptions. Any depth takes the form of what Gurdjieff calls 'wiseacring,' or 'word salad' which gives the illusion of depth. But when you get real close to the screen then...

 

[Guest]

I think the title of this thread in the way it is evolving should be rephrased: "Exercises in Discernment". As such, it is more an ongoing exercise than it is a matter of adhering to general statements, such as expressed in many posts previously here. These are all well and good, but there are exceptions, and every case needs to be taken on its own merit. Here are some generalizations that I take to be true, but to make them practical, I believe, we need to focus on how to apply them in particular cases, such as the one Angelo has provided for us.

The devil (both the relevant and irrelevant one), as always, is in the details.

...ometimes people seem to get carried away with dismantling the details while somebody tries to introduce something new and new means it may not be thought all the way trough or be completely figured out at that stage.

We would rather rationalize to protect our own filtered 'understanding'. This of course fails the potential realization that there is nothing to be understood but rather that all is to be known, witout exception.

It is scary just how much we buffer ourselves against the truth. And all this difficulty, simply for those who ARE looking for the truth. And yet there is another aspect, which is defending against the continual effort to BLOCK the search for truth, by cointelpro agents and entropy in general.

I think we may all be attached to our ideas, regardless of whether they are new, old, far from the truth or close to it.

An insane person never knows he's insane. He needs others to tell him! Sleeping person doesn't know he's asleep until he wakes up.

All of these statements are true, but are they true in the same way in every particular case? In commenting I am referring to the specific situation, where we may perhaps narrow the above truths and apply them with fewer divergences in our "exercise". IMO, it is not so much whether Angelo is right or wrong, but our own examination of how he is right or wrong that matters. Whether his contribution has something to offer or not, it remains invaluable as "An Exercise in Discernment".

This is not so much putting Angelo in the position of a "test subject" other than the very nature of dialogue as a quest for truth. If we can learn discernment then questions regarding how to listen, to be or not to be attached to one's own beliefs and when and how to accept something new are moot. When you learn an art, you are beyond generalizing about it. It is simply that which you can do well. And if we can learn this "art" we can live the truth that the Who once sang: "Won't be fooled again!".

A basic truth is "looking for the devil in the details". To get as much as we can from this, however, shouldn't we learn to discern which are the most relevant details in which to find the devil? I believe they are those where the little devil conceals the bigger one seeking to ride the bigger picture. In other words, some detailed criticism simply provides another with more food for endless argument. Shouldn't we focus on those details that represent in concentration what the other is trying to convey? What's the central message? Which details most represent the central message? After all, the most harmful devils in the details are those who have a big brother in the total meaning of the presentation.

If a text does not strike us as truth, that sense usually begins with a general sense that something is not right. By asking "what is not right?" we can look through the details for analytic confirmation of that general assessment. In doing so we can be free from addressing points that can lead us away from our trying to understand the central message, whether the messenger is trying to "sell" it or simply sincerely communicate a perspective.

This relates to Fifth Way's point, which is also true. However, whether this new idea is really under development, or whether it is a ready made package to be shoved down our throats, is something that we can discern in examining the way this idea is presented. Is it really new, or is it something quite old in a fancy package? Thus, Fifth Way's take complements that of Ark, IMO, because by looking at the details most relevent to the central theme of the presentation, we can discern how our "idea man" is trying to communicate.

Patterns of sincerity can be discerned in a text, and so can patterns of manipulation. It is a skill to know the difference, and all skills are developed through practice, as Ark stated in another thread.

Unbeliever's statement is also very true. We all tend to rationalize. However, this statement assumes the good will of the person presenting the ideas. If we sustain the active capability to empathize with another, the reason we rationalize and defend our views, and the reason we feel threatened by other contradictory views is usually because we have fallen victim to manipulation at some point in our lives.

Open-ended unconditional acceptance of every idea that comes our way is not discernment. In a world without psychopaths perhaps things would be that way. In this real world, however, EVERY idea must past through the sifter of our capability to examine it, and this is not just taking it apart in an egoistic manner, but the straightest path to understanding anything. Ideas do not occur in a vacuum. We are responsible for our ego responses, but we are also responsible to ourselves to discern the motives of the presenter.

The point is that any real truth will withstand this test, even if we reject it offhand, because once we come into contact with truth it begins to manifest as poignant lessons in our lives, lessons that we may have ignored before, but which now acquire new meaning. But if we invite the lie, we are inviting the vampire in our home, and the lessons will then become harsh until we learn to withold such rash invitations until we know what is facing our door.

Sleepyvinny's statement extends this further by presenting the reality that learning discernment is a Herculean task. We have our defensiveness on the one hand that can push truth away, and we have imposed manipulation trying to force us to accept lies. In the end, we may just push away truth, and swallow every lie that comes our way. Sleepyvinny's statement is a testimony to how important learning the art of discernment is, and to learn this art, every case must be taken as its own unique opportunity.

Ruth's statement is also true, but here we need to differentiate attachment to ideas no matter what they are or where they originate, from the strength of conviction born of passing ideas through the sifter of discernment. Without conviction, we are putty in the hands of manipulators. Truly, if we do not learn to discern, we are lost.

Finally, SCO tells us that insane people do not know they are insane, and that they need others to tell them. Fortunately, discernment is not created in a vacuum. "Sanity" (in the metaphoric sense of objective clarity) is a prerequisite. And although an insane person may need others to tell him/her, a sane person is convinced of their sanity regardless of what lunatics may say. In fact, the first test that we are ready to discern ideas coming from other sources involves discerning our own mental coherence. Self-knowledge, to a degree where you trust your own critical faculties, is the foundation of all other knowledge.

I have expressed my own generalizations, if you will, in attempting to qualify the statements I quoted. All of these, however, apply when discernment is our focus. And for any such focus to have meaning, it needs a target of application, a set of ideas presented as truth. Angelo has graciously provided such ideas.

So I think the relevent questions for this particular case are:

What is Angelo trying to say? What is his theme? How does he suggest to implement that theme? What difference to his ideas make in our learning and in our lives? Is it practical to apply them, and can they even be applied in any meaningful context? What is Angelo asking us to forsake in terms of current understandings so his perspective can replace it? And finally, is what Angelo proposes beneficial or not?

Perhaps we can try to answer such questions in our own words, to distill his meaning (within which lies his intent), and we may find understanding him (for better or worse) much easier.

I am sure there will be more postings from Angelo, and there we can roll up our sleeves, and get some real practice in the art of discernment, the art of seeing the unseen.

 

[Fifth Way]

I said it before but I think this is a really good spot to repeat it:

I have the deepest respect for Laura's and Ark's total commitment to teaching and its level and depth. And I really want to specifically include EsoQuest in this compliment. Especially the mix of the teachers brings this forum to an unbelievable level, IMHO.

I think the title of this thread in the way it is evolving should be rephrased: "Exercises in Discernment"

For as long as I'm part of this thread I didn't even pay attention to the word "Discernment" in the title, which is strange as I too believe Discernment is one of the utmost important things to learn on the quest for Truth.
And yes - there is no short cut!

What's the central message?

The central message is always where I try to direct my focus to. And one central message that I picked up in this thread (even though it is not necessarily central to this particular thread but rather for my search in general) is the one that brings me right back to my compliment above:

Q: What I am trying to get to is an understanding of an enlightened being. Eddie and a LOT of other people have the idea that an enlightened being IS LOVE, and that is what they radiate, and that this is a result of being enlightened. _

A: No, no, no, no, no. "Enlightened" does not mean good. Just smart. _

Q: Okay, so there are STS and STO enlightened beings? _

A: Yes, we believe the overall ratio is 50/50. _

Q: Okay, what is the profile of an enlightened STO being? _

A: An intelligent being who only gives. _

Q: Well, since we have dealt with the idea of not giving love to those who don't ask, what do they give and to whom do they give it? _

A: All; to those who ask.

Give All to those who ask!

Ultimately I think there is no better way to teach this than living it.

Like you do Laura, Ark and Eso. Thank you.

 

[Unbeliever]

I liked your intervention overall Eso.

Open-ended unconditional acceptance of every idea that comes our way is not discernment. In a world without psychopaths perhaps things would be that way. In this real world, however, EVERY idea must past through the sifter of our capability to examine it, and this is not just taking it apart in an egoistic manner, but the straightest path to understanding anything. Ideas do not occur in a vacuum. We are responsible for our ego responses, but we are also responsible to ourselves to discern the motives of the presenter.

That is quite right. That is where I situate the need to:

1- Recognize the light within
2- Recognize and seek the light within the other.

Obviously, when someone expresses an idea, it will come through the egoic tube with a certain amount of polluting items, like water coming through a tap kept closed too long.
Suppressing the right of expression has for effect to refrain the expression of the light (water) and the speaker may clam up again, not secure in his reality and perhaps will prefer to express what has already been said by some great teacher of the past (because of course of such and such said it the words become collectively acceptable and can be repeated ad nauseam).

This process of oppressing the speaker not only protects a conviction but also is a negative feedback loop that is meant to keep individuals from realizing their light. This keeps the individuals trapped within the 'common sense' of his cultural hat, that forces him to go with the flow of the majority present in a particular place.

For that matter, I would even go as far as saying that when a black sheep comes about and makes statements, there is a chance that this is where spirit energy is intervening through a form that will challenge the pretenses of the group. That is where the individuals within that group can judge if they themselves are applying what the group preaches or if in the end they are still falling victim to their defensive reflexes.

Of course that does not mean that the black sheep discourse is right but rather that his words should be used to increase the mental potential by integration of the emotional energy that is supported by instinct. And, who says instinct says program.

There should never be acceptance of whatever as such. Even in front of a saint. On the other hand, we should be able to connect with that part of the speech that supports some light and build upon this. Either this can be via creative opposition, which is a process that requires perpetual questioning to 'test' the material presented, or it can be with creative augmentation or amplification, where finding no fault, the interlocutor taking the relay will add to what was said in an attempt to refine the form further, forcing him to shed more light yet.

The ego will not do this easily because for one, he is afraid of what he could say and then, he is afraid of not being confirmed by his peers, therefore losing credibility.

Really, this is a matter of insecurity. This is where we see the messenger being shot at rather than the message being fired at with the intent of finding any possible fault and fix it.

Human nature is a lied embodied to which we easily identify and for which we claim the right to be.
We can only see what goes through our channel, therefore if we identify to what possesses that particular field, we become it. Had we been right as often as we have claimed since the beginning of this civilization, we would be quite more evolved than we are, really.

I am sure there will be more postings from Angelo, and there we can roll up our sleeves, and get some real practice in the art of discernment, the art of seeing the unseen.

I like that.

To discern within others is a lot easier than to discern within. Then again, if we are not prepared to shield from internal influences, our discernment of others will be the reflection of our own prejudice. Therefore, lucidity that brings discernment must lie outside the field of judgment, based on values, and instead become an instantaneous opening of our channel for the benefit of the interlocutor.
Lie or not lie, it does not matter so much. It is an illusion to believe that we are at risk in front of a lie if we consider to have the capacity of discernment. Discernment requires to not believe but also requires to not believe something to be wrong either. Discernment asks of us to 'see', not interpret. To go beyond accepted values of a particular usual lexicon and redefine words.

Generally speaking, people are always right when you look at things from their standpoint. Doing so helps greatly in really seeing what it is exactly that person is trying to convey. That does not mean that what is said is perfect but that it allows for the chance to perfect it.

The ego is already aware of its lack of reality, of its lack of identity. This makes him perpetually want to make assertions and to seek the concurrence of his peers which in turn will lead to conviction and, if that fails, potentially even lead to coertion.

Those principles will always be challenged and, when one believes he has attained that great capacity to listen, another one will be sent to challenge and test his newly discovered aptitude.

About that quote from whatever transcript

"we believe the overall ratio..."
That is the sign of an astrally limited consciousness. It therefore can only talk about astral enlightenment, which is in total opposition to the integration of light.

When someone says 'I believe that' that person is protecting herself from the collective backlash of a statement. It is collectively not acceptable to even consider that a single individual could know outside of the collective bank of so called 'knowledge'.

That is where lucidity and discernment become important. We like to have much discernment when facing our peers but just show me a 'being of light' or an 'entity' of whatever type and people fall flat on their face.

The future standing of the human spirit stands way above any and all these so called alien intelligences that posit as teachers. Does this mean we should not listen? Of course not but we should not believe, that is where our protection lies.

 

[Fifth Way]

"we believe the overall ratio..."
That is the sign of an astrally limited consciousness. It therefore can only talk about astral enlightenment, which is in total opposition to the integration of light.

When someone says 'I believe that' that person is protecting herself from the collective backlash of a statement. It is collectively not acceptable to even consider that a single individual could know outside of the collective bank of so called 'knowledge'.

That is where lucidity and discernment become important. We like to have much discernment when facing our peers but just show me a 'being of light' or an 'entity' of whatever type and people fall flat on their face.

Good point. The learning never stops here.

Then again my focus was not on that part of the quote, but on the last, as highlighted:
The definition of an enlightened STO being -> to be one that 'Gives All to those who ask!'

Rather in a gnostic way than in a scientific way I recognized this as Truth.

Further, the usage of the phrase "we believe this or that to be xyz..." could also be just a way to speak politely.

 

[ark]

[...]
1- Recognize the light within

2- Recognize and seek the light within the other.

[...] refrain the expression of the light (water)

[...]

... keep individuals from realizing their light.

[...]

... the speech that supports some light

[...]

... forcing him to shed more light yet.

[...]

... It therefore can only talk about astral enlightenment, which is in total opposition to the integration of light.

[...]

... We like to have much discernment when facing our peers but just show me a 'being of light'

You seem to be obsessed by light. But the word truth did not appear in your post even once. And that is somewhat strange. It looks like you do not care about "truth". You see, with light you can transmit both truth and lies. That is what happens on internet today. The most efficient internet connections are using waveguides that transmit light. And light does not care about what it transmits.

Of course it is quite possible that for you "light" means "truth", but if so, why to use such a disguise? - See my previous post about codes and cryptography :)

Rather in a gnostic way than in a scientific way I recognized this as Truth.

And indeed, truth is what we care about. There are many differenting ways of getting there. Gnostic, scientific, enlightments, etc. But there are much less ways of "testing" whether what we tend to take as "Truth" is really such. Not an easy task, and never finished.

 

[Unbeliever]

Agreed in the sense that deception can and will take the guise of light.
On the other hand, truth I see as a polarized positioning in relationship with a cultural value.
The truth of an Arab is not the truth of a Christian is not the truth of a Gnostic and so forth.
Truth is a word that bears much idealism whereas if the reality behind the truth, like the reality hiding behind the light, was made obvious, the very impression of the self would be dissolve as we understand it.

A truth is an intellectual conceptualization valid in a time where such concept can be supported by the psyche. In a future time, that truth then becomes an ancient crutch and needs to be disposed of so that consciousness can pursue its evolution. The verb in the end dictates the direction of reality and the verb is the expression of the 'light' or 'spirit' or source of the individual.

If we refer to 'light' in this context, it is to suggest a consciousness that removes the darkness that shades comprehension; what can be coined all that is illusory within.

So, for me light does not actually equate truth as such but rather the systematic removal of veils that shield from clear vision that bring about interpretations that are already dictated by an individual's particular need for experience.

I do not wish to use a disguise but rather use terms that are meant to directly avoid the likes as truths and similar terms. A truth, in my book, being a form that support a conviction that is necessary for a time, for a particular evolutionary purpose, and that is never an absolute.

Absolutes are static in nature and all that is not absolute and that travels time must be evolutionary in essence. Therefore, I do not seek truth but rather I would attempt to see, especially within, what traps and pitfalls come this way.

Lucidity and discernment do not need yardsticks and comparative values such as truths to express or see. Then, the energy (if you prefer this term to light), is free then to move, evolve, study the many layers of reality, instead of becoming prisoner of concepts and accumulate them. That light of which I speak does not need to learn but rather must be allowed to express itself and instruct itself about its own reality. That is what I would call the new man, liberated from truths and polarized concepts, all those energies that are in constant opposition and that are the foundation of egoic internal tensions.

You are right though, I did use the word light quite a lot. What is important with light anyway is not the light itself but what is behind that light.

About words and cryptography, well, words are forms that contain and carry energy.
That energy can be spirit or soul in our case. This means it can be life or memory. So, seeing the light or spirit within the other means to read the spirit of the words.
The important reason for this is that we are, until we are adept at telepathic communication, forced to use words that already carry eons of manipulative meaning.
The only thing then that can be done is to cleanse those words of their psychological interpretation and redefine them with living spirit. Those words were encoded with the limit that had to be kept over what humanity could know. Whereas a word definition could fit in a short paragraph in a dictionary, the same word could spawn a near infinite amount of material since its redefinition becomes the actual exercise in evolution of a spirit that must integrate the memory of the experience to create a new etheric vehicle instead of the astral vehicle that limited us to that realm and forced us to go back to the world of the dead.

These redefinitions of words then become the expression of the source of human consciousness and the creation of the destiny of the individual by the individual. The repossession of human consciousness must go through the destruction of all psychological and psychic forms to which the ego is emotionally attached. Of these, and especially for the spiritually minded, all spiritual forms that are the greatest test for the evolved soul, since the great spiritual entities believe that they have attained the apex of their evolution. The more the spiritual forms are refined and elevated in vibration, the more powerful their grasp on the human psyche and the more energy is required for the individual to free himself from those forms.

So, what I see as important is not the form but the spirit of the form.

 

[Ben]

truth I see as a polarized positioning in relationship with a cultural value.
The truth of an Arab is not the truth of a Christian is not the truth of a Gnostic and so forth.
Truth is a word that bears much idealism whereas if the reality behind the truth, like the reality hiding behind the light, was made obvious, the very impression of the self would be dissolve as we understand it.

A truth is an intellectual conceptualization valid in a time where such concept can be supported by the psyche. In a future time, that truth then becomes an ancient crutch and needs to be disposed of so that consciousness can pursue its evolution. The verb in the end dictates the direction of reality and the verb is the expression of the 'light' or 'spirit' or source of the individual.

Forgive me if I have missed your meaning here, as I find it difficult to understand your use of language. Truth is the objective reality, things as they are. That's the simple definition, and I think it works well for us. More or less of this truth may be available to us depending on our perceptions, state of being within the whole of existence etc. Are you implying that truth is always subjective? Again, forgive me if I misunderstand you.